One Piece - 6-C revision

[AstralKing7]

Please stop trying to make things seem worse then they are. That's petty and doesn't win any arguments as well

 

[Damage3245]

@AstralKing7; that doesn't mean he's actually wrong. Personal attacks and rage-quitting a thread doesn't win any arguments either.

Here is the updated version of the calc by the way.

 

[Xulrev]

Please stop trying to make things seem worse then they are. That's petty and doesn't win any arguments as well

Are you unironically calling me petty after giving kudos to a pathetic insult on a CRT that serves no purpose other than to derail when the OP ragequit due to inability to be productive? Please reflect on this entire interaction before responding further. Or, in fact, just don't comment further since it's derailing even moreso than the puerile attack already has.

@Damage since it's on this thread and blogs don't give notifications: why is your calc superior to the original calc? The math checks out, but I want to hear why your version is superior; does it make less presumptions, is it better/more accurate math, why should yours be accepted?

 

[Damage3245]

@Xulrev; my calc hasn't been evaluated yet.

As far as accuracy goes, my calc cuts out a couple steps in the pixelscaling and uses the currently accepted value for Dressrosa's diameter directly instead of taking the result from an older calc and trying to convert it to the current accepted diameter.

 

[Dr.Fix]

Can we not derail this thread (at the last minute no less) with some sudden different interpretation of the feat?

 

[Damage3245]

@Dr. Fix; not really, since this is pretty important for determining what the ratings will be. I've put in a request for it to be evaluated on the Calc Evaluations thread.

 

[AstralKing7]

That needs an entirely different thread^

 

[Dr.Fix]

If we stopped every revision thread just as it was reaching its end every time somebody decided to create a different take on the calc . . . well we'd never get anywhere.

For the sake of respect of procedure, you should have at least waited till your calc was evaluated and approved. I can't even take it seriously right now.

 

[Dr.Fix]

I recomment the 1.52 goes through for discussed reasons and because the calc is approved. If @Damage wants to change it after his calc gets approved (If it does) we can make another thread.

 

[Damage3245]

@Dr. Fix; I wanted to keep people on the thread updated which is why I let you know that the calc was made.

As for this thread though, we shouldn't proceed with revisions if the calc has issues to it, which I believe it does. So we should wait.

 

[Eminiteable]

Agreed Dr Fix.

 

[The_Calaca]

Honestly, at this point this is becoming a bad joke.

>Discussion starts

>Everyone agrees

>There's a little disagreement

>Lot of discussion takes place

>No conclusion in weeks/months

>Suddenly the opposition claims that their opponents lost (this has been happening a lot lately >_>)

>Opposition start losing support

>Opposition brings a table flip that they didn't matter to do before for reasons

>Discussion starts once again

 

[Damage3245]

> Suddenly the opposition claims that their opponents lost

Isn't that what Cin just tried to do?

> Opposition brings a table flip that they didn't matter to do before for reasons

I've been working on the calc for the past couple of days when I had spare time. I've always thought that the original calc was a bit sketchy and decided that the simplest way of determining it was accurate or not was to do the whole thing from scratch.

 

[Eminiteable]

This thread has be going on for a lot longer than a few days and this thread only got bumped a little under a week.

 

[Antvasima]

@Calaca

What are the summarised conclusions here?

 

[The_Calaca]

Cin did so because excluding you and Xulrev, there's no recurrent opposition while everyone else agreed either with the compromise or with Cin. And the people who agreed with the compromise (me and Ant) said that either option was okay, meaning that it wasn't a full support at all.

@Ant

None. We're going to be here forever.

 

[Antvasima]

We should probably apply the compromise solution then. Sorry Damage.

 

[Damage3245]

@Antvasima; since there are multiple calculations of the feat, shouldn't there be a discussion on which calc should be used before profiles are changed?

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that you can ask other calc group members to help out if you wish. Spino has a lot of time at the moment for example, and Ugarik, Antoniofer, and Executor are always reliable.

 

[Damage3245]

I'll leave them a message.

 

[Antvasima]

Thanks.

 

[Eminiteable]

Okay it's been 5 days, enough with the distractions and trying to halt this thread. Can the compromise most agreed with be put in place?

 

[Damage3245]

Hey, sorry, I meant to create a new CRT this week but haven't found a good time to do it yet. My version of the calc has been accepted so I'll need to make the thread to discuss which calc should be used and which profiles would be affected.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thanks.

 

[Damage3245]

Here is the thread: https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/4097472

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. What is left to do in this thread then?

 

[Xulrev]

No consensus was reached on what to scale Luffy to in terms of Fujitoras AP, and depending on Damages new calc it would heavily downgrade Gear 3 Luffy as argued by everyone in the thread aside from myself and Damage

 

[Eminiteable]

Nothing only applying what the majority came out an agreement on; which varies from the compromise fin proposed to the full value.

 

[Chianli]

so,what

also i thougth rubber was immune to quake outside but not the inside

 

[AstralKing7]

No consensus was reached on what to scale Luffy to in terms of Fujitoras AP, and depending on Damages new calc it would heavily downgrade Gear 3 Luffy as argued by everyone in the thread aside from myself and Damage

A thread would have to be made to discuss which calc to use

 

[Damage3245]

@Astral; already done. Link is just up above.