Ouma's Shoulder Charge

[Agnaa]

Question: Is there any proof that the character was moving at that speed at that very moment? Because that's the main issue with "calc stacking".

The closest thing to proof is that the character very easily moves above that speed, and this feat comes from a bloodlusted fight.

Other than that, there's no statement alongside the feat of what speed the character had, i.e. no proof that they were moving that speed at that moment.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

There is a feat coming from the fact that.

Ikki Kurogane who narration stated could dodge a relativistic attack at close combat with ease, could not dodge a shoulder charge from Ouma. So he had to block it.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

Well logically speaking it does make sense for the characters to be moving at their top speed, but our current calc stacking policy does not seem to allow assuming a character to be as fast as in another scene.

If we allow this feat it would be a basis for many massive speed revisions, as many characters will be upgraded by arguing that it makes sense for the character to be moving at their top speed in that context.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

There is a feat coming from the fact that.
Ikki Kurogane who narration stated could dodge a relativistic attack at close combat with ease, could not dodge a shoulder charge from Ouma. So he had to block it.

There is this too ^^ @Spino

And about that, i do agree that in a bloodlusted fight it's logical enough that people would be giving their fullest which would mean their top speed too.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

Well to propose that a character's speed should be allowed to use to get KE in a bloodlusted fight is a quite radical proposal affecting the entire site, and would require a revision not limited to this verse.

 

[Andytrenom]

The situation seems very much in the same realm as calc stacking. The fact that the values don't come from calcs is only a technicality, taking the speed from one source and applying it to a feat that doesn't specify it itself maintains the same concept and should be just as much of a cause for concern

Don't think I can support this

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Not all that many tbh. Since this is a very special case:

• The speed is stated and not calculated.

• The KE here is applicable cus it comes from mass rather than lol fiction.

• A relativistic guy couldn't dodge that attack.

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

I mean that policy assumes Ikki got slower from when he fought Touka to when he fought a stronger and faster opponent Ouma. So it doesn't make any logical sense.

I think each speed revision should be dealt with individually. Like case by case.

 

[Andytrenom]

I have literally no clue what you mean by this

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

The speed doesn't need to be stated in there. The speed has already established many times before.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

• The KE here is applicable cus it comes from mass rather than lol fiction.

I have literally no clue what you mean by this
Pretty sure if you calc KE for goku for example, you won't get Low 2-C result of energy. That's what i mean.

Here it's actually physically correct "i deal a lot of damage cus im very heavy".

 

[Andytrenom]

In any kinetic energy calc the speed needs to be established in the feat itself

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

I mean that's nowhere on the KE feats page.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

That's being nitpicky for the sake of being nitpicky. If people can dodge relativistic attacks, but not that attack, how is that not saying "it's at least relativistic"?

 

[Andytrenom]

@Emperor Doesn't need to be, the calc stacking page establishes this and the problems because of which it exists don't just disappear because the speed is stated instead of being calced

 

[Firephoenixearl]

@Emperor Doesn't need to be, the calc stacking page establishes this and the problems because of which it exists don't just disappear because the speed is stated instead of being calced

Depends. I already gave you the "feat" for why the speed was relativistic (ikki not being able to dodge it, so he was forced to block).

And Calc Stacking usually doesn't apply cus the authors do not calc the feats themselves. So he just gives a character MFTL+ speed feat by accident, cus he didn't calculate just how fast he would be. Read my point above.

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

We aren't using another calculated feat. The speed is legitamately shown many times before in the series. So the characters are basically confirmed to be at this level of speed. So using it is no issue.

So there's no difference if the speed was stated in the feat or not. The speed of the characters has already been established to be at a certain level.

 

[Andytrenom]

Actually scratch that, i misremembered the page

It is still a standard though and you don't trust me you can ask any other staff if kinetic energy feats are supposed to be treated this way

 

[Agnaa]

@Emperor Why are you repeating that it's a calculated feat? Andy clearly knows

@Emperor Doesn't need to be, the calc stacking page establishes this and the problems because of which it exists don't just disappear because the speed is stated instead of being calced

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Guys guys. Point is, this shoulder charge, was fast enough that a relativistic guy was unable to dodge it. The speed is very strongly implied when Ikki couldn't dodge it.

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

What "problems" are there because from what I'm seeing there's no issue. A statement isn't equivalent to a calculation. We aren't calcing the statement it's just verbatim what the value already is.

 

[Agnaa]

Like Spino (and I) have said, this isn't allowed under the way the regulations are written like now. If you want to change the regulations, it'd need a larger revision.

If you think allowing KE for this isn't problematic, that's great and all, but it's an argument for changing the standards first and foremost.

 

[Andytrenom]

Calc stacking still applies to when tbe speed is a simple deduction like supersonic for close range bullet dodging

Not to mention we have zero reason to disqualify feats on the basis of "author doesn't calc feats themselves" when we allow ke to be calced based of another calculated speed granted both happen in the same scene

It is clearly the speed and ke coming from different scenes that is the problem and not calcing something off pf value the author didn't anticipate

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

Where are these regulations from because afaik it's not even on the pages themselves that are designed to deal with this issue.

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

@Andy

So if there's a relatavistic statement. Like Touka's attacks are return strokes. It counts as a calc if we just take the mathmatical value for speed of this by this wikis standards?

 

[Firephoenixearl]

And the problem from different scenes is?

A scene before a dude easily dodges a relativistic attack.

A scene later a dude cannot dodge another attack.

What would be the logical reasoning here?

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

It isn't flawed in this case and it's supposed to be take case by case.

 

[Andytrenom]

I assume it's supposed to prevent inflation, if you have a problem with this you are free to make a revision of calc stacking

@Emperor I don't remember calc stacking being a case by case standard at all

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

I'm just going off what I'm reading.

 

[Andytrenom]

Actually, you are better off with a general discussion. Creating a big policy discussion isn't as easy as I made it seem in my comment

 

[Andytrenom]

I'm just going off what I'm reading.

I guess the wording does make it seem that way. Although from my own experience it has never been a rule that can ignored just because actual results aren't inconsistent with the series

 

[Antvasima]

I am unsubscribing from this discussion due to time constraints. You can message me later if you need my help.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I assume it's supposed to prevent inflation, if you have a problem with this you are free to make a revision of calc stacking

This seems like a very special case. Im not going to do a thread about the rules, when this seems like a special case.

The rules exist on a more broad and generalized view of feats, they do not apply to every single possible feat. That's why case by case is a main point here. And in our case, for the calc not to be valid there needs to be a clear logical, mathematical or physics flaw in my reasoning for this feat for it to be considered well "invalid". The rules exist so that we do not make apply flawed calcs, but if no flaws can be found then that's not cus the rules are bad, it just means the case is rather special.

So now again this is my reasoning. The speed is strongly implied to be at least "relativistic". Because in a bloodlusted fight, a dude who could dodge a relativistic attack, could not dodge this attack.

Rather than saying "it's the rules" i would appreciate more if you pointed out "why" the speed is incorrect. What would be the reason my deduction and therefore my calc would be considered flawed and henceforth invalid. Rules do not exist for every case that's why "judging case by case" exists as a word in the first place, because it's impossible to genralize every possible feat into a single rule.

 

[Agnaa]

The problem with that line of argument (explain why the speed is incorrect in this case), is that the exact same argument can actually be made for many other cases.

 

[00potato]

So the argument is flawed because you can use it in other situations. Read that over again

 

[Agnaa]

So the argument is flawed because you can use it in other situations. Read that over again

It's not "The argument is flawed because you can use it in other situations", I'm just informing Earl that this isn't a lone special case; it applies to other situations, and as such, if he wants it treated differently here, he should make a CRT so it's treated differently everywhere.

 

[Andytrenom]

If you want an explanation sorry but you would have to ask someone else, because I don't have much opinion on the idea of calc stacking. Nevertheless, ignoring rules is absolutely not healthy practice and not something you can excuse just by saying "it's a special case", since that's a claim anyone can make for anything. For that reason I cannot approve this feat, since I do have a responsibility to maintain here, and that is keeping revisions in line with our standards

 

[Andytrenom]

And btw it isn't even a special case. The logic "the guy has this speed, so if he fights without holding back he would move at this speed and have this much kinetic energy" is something that can apply to countless characters across the board, and it would be harder to find someone you can't use this argument for

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Exactly. If there is literally no counter argument and the debate goes like this:

Well Earl, there is literally nothing I can say to debunk your argument, making you objectively correct in everything regarding the speed, but other cases lol.

Are you really going to tell me, this is the argument to reject my calc? If there are other cases that were just as correct on all sides yet got debunked with literally 0 counter arguments then that is not my problem. That is a mistake, it should not have gotten accepted.

Several wrongs do not make a right people, just because we let perfectly clean calculations go because we applied rules to everything even if they made no logical sense to be treated that way, doesn't mean we have to keep doing that. I am not knowledgeable on the rules regarding this and i personally do not think that the rules should be changed just because there are several feats that can be logical even against those rules.

I am not responsable for the rules either, so again back to my point, if there is gonna be a debunk to my clac, then ok fair enough, i don't mind, i was wrong, sure. However, i have to be proven wrong, on my exact case, rather then be said:

Well we slapped calcs like this in the past too with apparently 0 debunking arguments and by saying "lol rules" so if we just keep doing that, it'll be fine.

^ This is not a logical argument.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

And btw it isn't even a special case. The logic "the guy has this speed, so if he fights without holding back he would move at this speed and have this much kinetic energy"

You didn't even read the argument did you?

>Can dodge relativistic

>Cannot dodge this

This is the argument.