-
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.
Kid Icarus 6-C feat Downgrade
- Thread starter Dragonmasterxyz
- Start date
- Status
- 13,228
- 21,047
There is a feat at the end of Chapter 18 in which Palutena throws a floating island at Pit with telekinesis. Could that work? I don't have a link right now, but a quick search of Chapter 18 of Kid Icarus: Uprising on YouTube should let you find the feat.
Last edited:
- 116
- 20
Probably not given that was more of a lifting strength feat and there is a greater feat of lesser gods shattering islands.
Plus the calc I linked should be looked at since it's a solid 7-C feat.
Anyway, I'll list off a few feats we can calc now. First one is the Island shatter feat done in Chapter 14
Second one is the feat from the anime of the Wolf Claws (Calculation here for someone to evaluate)
Lastly, and I don't know if we can do this, but possibly the energy required to spin the Aurum Brain before actually flying?
Here's a bonus feat from chapter 12 of an explosion we can calc since Pit no-sells this.
Plus the calc I linked should be looked at since it's a solid 7-C feat.
Anyway, I'll list off a few feats we can calc now. First one is the Island shatter feat done in Chapter 14
Second one is the feat from the anime of the Wolf Claws (Calculation here for someone to evaluate)
Lastly, and I don't know if we can do this, but possibly the energy required to spin the Aurum Brain before actually flying?
Here's a bonus feat from chapter 12 of an explosion we can calc since Pit no-sells this.
Last edited:
- 13,228
- 21,047
I can take a look at any one of these later today, if that helps.
Additionally, for the chapter 18 feat, couldn't we get the mass of the island and then its distance from the PoV (since it gets launched to the PoV) to get speed and use the KE formula to get an AP value?
Additionally, for the chapter 18 feat, couldn't we get the mass of the island and then its distance from the PoV (since it gets launched to the PoV) to get speed and use the KE formula to get an AP value?
- 116
- 20
That could work. Didn't actually think of that. Doubt the result will be that high compared to other feats unfortunately, but it's good to have more calcs for the verse in general
- 13,228
- 21,047
Okay, I can look at some of these feats later and see what they yield.
- 167,863
- 76,487
@DemonGodMitchAubin @Damage3245 @Ugarik @Executor_N0 @Therefir @Jasonsith @Mr._Bambu @Wokistan
Would any of you be willing to help us out with this please?
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 22,786
- 22,313
Well the calc that is requesting evaluation is wrong, as it can easily be a case where it only visually seems to reach into the clouds due to background fuckery.
The stuff that needs calc'ing can be looked into, aye.
The stuff that needs calc'ing can be looked into, aye.
- 3,904
- 684
The tower reaches the clouds, to randomly assert "background fuckery" without any real proof as to why is a really weird dismiss.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 22,786
- 22,313
As you can see here, the tower clearly touches the sky and clearly has no issue of background vs foreground that anybody could realistically tell is happening.
Jokes aside, it really isn't. I should think it's fairly easy to tell that the clouds aren't even really touching the tower, thus making it mighty suspicious to say "well yes it's reaching into the clouds". I am formally rejecting the calculation.
Jokes aside, it really isn't. I should think it's fairly easy to tell that the clouds aren't even really touching the tower, thus making it mighty suspicious to say "well yes it's reaching into the clouds". I am formally rejecting the calculation.
- 13,228
- 21,047
The problem with these Kid Icarus feats is that they can be hard to calculate because of the 3DS hardware limitations limiting how much we can see at a given moment.
- 3,904
- 684
That's not the same picture as the one shown in the KI thing.
Not the same angle
Not the same height
Not even the same size
Idk why you even attempted to use that as an example.
Quote where I said it's touching the tower, I said it reaches the clouds, you can see from the angle, the angle you sent for your picture is a false equivalence.
- 3,904
- 684
Idk how to reply to that other then you can. Especially since the storm is directly above the thing too.
- 3,904
- 684
And notice how it's not far above and they're not in the highest part tower, so if you admit to my claim there, you're by extension admitting to my previous claim of it being in the sky with the clouds.
You've given no real refute other then a false equivalence.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 22,786
- 22,313
My refute is that it, at no point ever, appears as though the tower is at the same height as the clouds. It doesn't get more complicated than that. Like I said, sorry, I don't really find legitimate basis in your means of scaling. That's my final evaluation as you haven't actually provided any concrete evidence contrary to that refutation other than "you can clearly see", which I cannot. The feat itself is valid, the method through which it was calculated isn't.
- 3,904
- 684
I have provided concrete evidence and even showed that the storm clouds are barely above a lower part of the tower which you even acknowledged. My only refutation was not "you can clearly see it" that's dishonest. Trying to take one part of my refutation to one of your small responses and trying to make it the entirety to make your part look better is not a good look, just saying.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 22,786
- 22,313
Let's review your refutations.
"The tower reaches the clouds, to randomly assert "background fuckery" without any real proof as to why is a really weird dismiss."
You can clearly see it.
"Quote where I said it's touching the tower, I said it reaches the clouds, you can see from the angle, the angle you sent for your picture is a false equivalence."
You can clearly see it.
"You can also see a storm is right next to the top of the tower here"
You can clearly see it. Also, no? Also, irrelevant for a magically summoned storm? Either way, this is the only one even approaching a refutation, which it doesn't successfully do given we never get a point of view that would validate it.
"Idk how to reply to that other then you can. Especially since the storm is directly above the thing too."
You can clearly see it.
"And notice how it's not far above and they're not in the highest part tower, so if you admit to my claim there, you're by extension admitting to my previous claim of it being in the sky with the clouds.
You've given no real refute other then a false equivalence."
We. Cannot. See. It. You're taking my zingy one liner to be an acceptance of bad evidence, which in of itself makes me suspicious. I dunno if you assume I have some sort of spite for this verse, but like... my genuine, honest, 100% real and actual evaluation of the feat is that it doesn't hit the clouds and nothing you've stated or attempted to show actually proves the contrary.
I'm done bickering about it.
"The tower reaches the clouds, to randomly assert "background fuckery" without any real proof as to why is a really weird dismiss."
You can clearly see it.
"Quote where I said it's touching the tower, I said it reaches the clouds, you can see from the angle, the angle you sent for your picture is a false equivalence."
You can clearly see it.
"You can also see a storm is right next to the top of the tower here"
You can clearly see it. Also, no? Also, irrelevant for a magically summoned storm? Either way, this is the only one even approaching a refutation, which it doesn't successfully do given we never get a point of view that would validate it.
"Idk how to reply to that other then you can. Especially since the storm is directly above the thing too."
You can clearly see it.
"And notice how it's not far above and they're not in the highest part tower, so if you admit to my claim there, you're by extension admitting to my previous claim of it being in the sky with the clouds.
You've given no real refute other then a false equivalence."
We. Cannot. See. It. You're taking my zingy one liner to be an acceptance of bad evidence, which in of itself makes me suspicious. I dunno if you assume I have some sort of spite for this verse, but like... my genuine, honest, 100% real and actual evaluation of the feat is that it doesn't hit the clouds and nothing you've stated or attempted to show actually proves the contrary.
I'm done bickering about it.
- 3,904
- 684
Oh we're trying to play semantics? This doesn't even coincide with "you can clearly see it" this is me saying that randomly asserting background fuckery with no real evidence is weird dismissal.
You can clearly see it.
Ignore the second part where I directly refute one of the examples you tried to use and try to undermine it into that, yes, top refute.
You can clearly see it. Also, no? Also, irrelevant for a magically summoned storm? Either way, this is the only one even approaching a refutation, which it doesn't successfully do given we never get a point of view that would validate it.
That's not a "you can clearly see it" that's me directly showing that's a storm, also it's made from the same clouds as you see the light re-appear after she finishes the storms, the angle you see it from is barely above a lower part of the tower.
"Idk how to reply to that other then you can. Especially since the storm is directly above the thing too."
I see someone didn't read "Trying to take one part of my refutation to one of your small responses and trying to make it the entirety to make your part look better is not a good look, just saying."
My.only.point.was.not.we.cannot.see.it. You attempting to play semantics in the universally worse way possible and undermine my previous refutes doesn't suddenly make it so. Your "zingy one liners" are not helpful to the conversation when I have yet to see a good refute and you didn't even bother to refute one of my earlier points that directly pointed out your tower point was a false equivalence. Excuse me, what? Where did I say you have spite for the verse? This is irrelevant to the discussion and shows me you either assume people simply doing the basics of a debate, which is giving a refute, suddenly means I think you spite the verse means you need to rethink replying on a discussion board. Chill out. The very fact that the storm clouds directly are barley above a lower layer of the tower. Your only real refute is trying to call it magically summoned when you see the light come back after it's gone and that we don't have a good point of view, when we can see it's barely above the lower layer of the tower. Inb4 using this again as me saying "you can clearly see it". I get what your evaluation is, I'm refuting against it, that's what someone commonly does when they disagree with the otherside.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 22,786
- 22,313
My judgement stands. I've ignored your point about the eiffel tower because that was a joke and I referred to it as such. This conversation is silly.
The evidence provided doesn't support your theory that the tower is 2 km tall, that's my final say. Done. Good. Cool. If someone does the other calcs, happy to look at them. Ping me when you need me as I'm not entering this thread til then, given that its pretty much just clogging the thread with the same circular argument. good lord.
The evidence provided doesn't support your theory that the tower is 2 km tall, that's my final say. Done. Good. Cool. If someone does the other calcs, happy to look at them. Ping me when you need me as I'm not entering this thread til then, given that its pretty much just clogging the thread with the same circular argument. good lord.
- 15,688
- 13,209
Can't you just like, calc the tower size?
It's clearly absolutely massive. It seems taller then the mountain next to it given they're, while not exactly next to each other, they aren't actually that far apart depth wise, one isn't overly in the back or foreground compared to the other, it also holds a mini city within it's base and so on and so forth, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it reached the clouds given what we see of it but in that case, you may as well just calc the tower, **** you may even get a taller height then if you just went basic cloud height.
It's clearly absolutely massive. It seems taller then the mountain next to it given they're, while not exactly next to each other, they aren't actually that far apart depth wise, one isn't overly in the back or foreground compared to the other, it also holds a mini city within it's base and so on and so forth, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it reached the clouds given what we see of it but in that case, you may as well just calc the tower, **** you may even get a taller height then if you just went basic cloud height.
- 13,228
- 21,047
I would like to add that Arlon's Lunar Sanctum is at such a size that compared to the actual moon (you see both the moon and the Lunar Sanctum together at the beginning of Chapter 13), they're actually the same size. Could this mean anything?
- 167,863
- 76,487
- 116
- 20
Bump
- 116
- 20
Forgot to say smth about this. Why wouldn't it scale to its AP? The entire premise was that its attack was done after it was de-powered and nearly destroyed, thus I see no reason for it not to scale.
Also, Pyrrhon amped the Aurum Generator mid-battle, which leads me to believe that they should scale regardless, since we agreed this wasn't a chain reaction that warranted 6-C.
- 167,863
- 76,487
@Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Therefir @Ugarik @DemonGodMitchAubin @Jasonsith @Wokistan @Armorchompy @KieranH10 @Migue79
Would any of you be willing to calculate any of this please?
- 116
- 20
I noticed the link for Chapter 12 was wrong. I went ahead and fixed it for anyone who plans on calcing it. Anyway, those should be all the feats I know of, is there any you'd like to add @Milly_Rocking_Bandit ?
- 167,863
- 76,487
- 15,999
- 6,003
Dunno, haven’t paid any attention to the thread since the downgrade went through, so.
- 15,999
- 6,003
Wait for calcs, l guess.
- 15,442
- 15,410
Ok, sorry for the late notice, what feats need to be calculated
Dust_Collector
They/Them- 7,749
- 8,762
These are the feats
- 15,442
- 15,410
1. I can try and calc that, but it will be tricky
2. That calc looks good and can be used if need be
3. How big is that thing? And is Pit pushing it?
4. That feat is fodder, it won't be anything good
2. That calc looks good and can be used if need be
3. How big is that thing? And is Pit pushing it?
4. That feat is fodder, it won't be anything good
Dust_Collector
They/Them- 7,749
- 8,762
I'll try and post the statements soon (Unless someone else does so first) but it's said to be the size of a continent. Pit isn't the one pushing but he scales to Pyrrhon who is the one doing it.
- Status
Similar threads
