Ouma's Shoulder Charge

[Andytrenom]

@Fire Your argument in the OP is literally "in a bloodlusted fight between 2 guys who fight at casual relativistic speeds, it makes sense to assume that they are fighting at those speeds. There is no reason to think that "they are giving their all, but they are going easy on speed". which is exactly the same situation I presented

And if your actual argument is what you now stated, that still applies. You can use that same argument to say any character who blitzes another character would be moving faster than the second character's reaction speed and that it can be used to calc his KE. And if you think the case is different because the attack itself implies KE in this scenario, then no, a character failing to react to a thrown projectile would also be a situation where an object that is eligible to have its KE calculated by our standards can be reasoned to be moving at a certain speed due to the character's failure to react and can be claimed has the KE corresponding to that speed. Now I guess every single mhs or higher character who successfully had an object thrown at him without dying would scale to the yield of that object moving at minimum a 100 times the speed of sound? And this is only taking one of the other situations deemed to imply KE in our standards

The situation isn't a special case at all so you are not getting an exception made here. The feat won't fly under our current standards

 

[Firephoenixearl]

No no. This is "solely" about the speed. The ke can be applied cus the feat states "because ouma is so heavy a charge from him is very strong". That part was agreed by everybody. This is only to discus the speed. Why is someone almost blitzing someone not implying the first person is moving at those speeds?

 

[Agnaa]

Because that same argument applies to dozens of verses and inflates their results in a way that most members don't find acceptable.

 

[00potato]

Whether people find it acceptable doesn't effect the accuracy of anything.

 

[Agnaa]

Yes it does. "This inflates results so we don't accept it" is how calcs work on this site, and how many of them get rejected.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

So my apologies if I'm interpreting this wrong, but am I right in assuming that the argument is whether two characters who move at casual Relativistic speeds can be assumed to move at Relativistic speeds when fighting seriously?

 

[00potato]

Agnaa if the logic makes sense then why does the amount other results that could potentially be inflated matter? We could look at everything individually to avoid that anyway rather then have rules that always apply to everything. Fiction is a broad topic and it can be hard to make rules for all of it

 

[Agnaa]

Agnaa if the logic makes sense then why does the amount other results that could potentially be inflated matter? We could look at everything individually to avoid that anyway rather then have rules that always apply to everything. Fiction is a broad topic and it can be hard to make rules for all of it

It inflates this result too. It goes from an Unknown feat to a 7-A feat.

 

[00potato]

The only reason it would be unknown is speed and you have yet to disprove the argument set up for that.

 

[Agnaa]

Speed is invalid because it's not given in the calc, and the argument "They almost blitzed so we'll use their speed feat for KE" applies to dozens of verses and inflates their results in a way that most members don't find acceptable.

I'll repeat myself agai, you'd need to change the standards if you want this treated differently, because this is not a special case.

 

[00potato]

Just saying "it applies to other stuff" and "people don't find it acceptable." don't effect the validity of the calc. You don't even give examples for anything you say also so why should I believe you?

 

[Agnaa]

"It applies to other stuff" is a counterargument to the idea that this is a special case. Pushed by both Earl and you (we can look at everything individually isn't helpful when this would apply in exactly the same way to other verses).

"People don't find it acceptable" is how all the rules on our wiki work. Why do we stop using relativistic KE when it gives 4x the result of Newtonian KE? Because it inflates results in a way people don't find acceptable.

"Does it follow our guidelines for KE calculations?" is exactly what's needed to determine the validity of the calc.

 

[00potato]

You provide no evidence that this applies to other settings. You say the problem is that relativistic inflates results but we have a good reason to assume that it was relativistic (something you haven't provided a good counter argument for)

Your case is based in a source less case and an appeal to authority (members don't like it so it's a problem.)

 

[Creaturemaster971]

As a complete outsider looking at this, the arguments for it being relativistic seem to make perfect sense and I don't understand what the problem is.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm barely familiar with a dozen verses. If you need proof that it applies to other settings I can't give it to you, and we can wait for someone who can to comment.

Just because we have good reason to assume it's relativistic doesn't stop that assumption from inflating results. Calc stacking's an issue because it takes a bunch of reasonable assumptions and stacks them to absurdity. (Yes I know that the relativistic speeds weren't calculated, but the term still applies).

If you tried giving a character 1-A for a statement of "Existing outside space and time" I'd tell you that's not how our 1-A regulations work. I'm not saying it's objectively right or wrong (which is where the appeal to authority fallacy would actually apply), I'm saying that it goes against our standards, which is true, and thus it won't be accepted on this website, which is true.

 

[Agnaa]

As a complete outsider looking at this, the arguments for it being relativistic seem to make perfect sense and I don't understand what the problem is.

To highlight my thoughts on the matter.

I think that it should be taken as relativistic.

But our standards don't allow it.

So either the standards should be changed, or this should be rejected.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

If the standards prevent a very reasonable result like this from being applied then it's seeming increasingly like a flaw in the standard itself.

 

[Huesito88]

Is it really appeal to authority when it's a standard that applies to all verse And not just Rakudai?

 

[Agnaa]

Exactly, which should be taken to its own thread to revise the standard, as I've said three times already.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

I think that seems reasonable

 

[AidenBrooks999]

I not even get the problem with this feat


We have very clearly rulea about Calc Stacking


This feat is no different that others we rejected (Using speed from other feats into another, in this case, Ouma's Relativistic rating for KE, when it's not even that he attacked at that speed, but that he scale to that because another character that it's Relativistic couldn't dodge it)


Also, consider profiles like Quicksilver from the MCU and X-Men Film Series, despite their MHS feats, we calculate their AP from the specific moments they actually attacked, using their speed from those specific moments

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

There's the relativistic Katana Zero characters who are merely 9-B, the Quicksilver example, likely massively hypersonic+ Baam at Low 7-C, FTL Low 7-B Hajime Nagumo...

Point is, you would have to change a standard that affects A LOT of profiles. This is a mere example. The only exceptions we do are with showcases of speed that the author is CLEARLY INTENDING to use the speed as a reasoning for the increase in destructive power. Think Misaka's Railgun from To Aru, or Fire Force's Shinra with his "Rapid" that makes him move way faster and is usually showcasen as boosting the force of his attack.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

I guess that makes sense. It just seems weird when the evidence for it still being that speed is so clearly spelled out. I can certainly see how someone could keep inflating calcs with such a method if they wanted to be dishonest or weren't doing it intentionally, it just feels like in this case it's the most logical thing to assume. Especially since it would make perfect sense in-universe.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

It is weird, but no system is completely flexible sadly, and especially for fiction where many authors don't research this stuff or just plain don't care, which is fine because power scaling is a part of suspension of disbelief, but is nothing central to writing.

The issue here isn't "obviously they must be using their full speed", this applies to far too many characters. The issue is an emphasis of speed accompanying strength. How many times do you see people that are comparable, one gets a speed boost and this does not in anyway affect the battle besides making you harder to keep up with and letting you do more stuff at once? Speed and power are consistently separate in a lot of fiction, there are even times where speed is an important part of the power behind a certain attack but characters that should obviously surpass this speed based on certain feats don't quite scale to this same magnitude of power. Its not universally applied.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

In that case, what of the possibility of distinguishing between writers/works that do take this into account and ones who don't.

I have no idea if Ikki's verse in particular does, but it seems like it'd be a potential point of flexibility for later cases like this.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

The problem is that one instance of this happening doesn't mean it'll apply to all instances. Off the top of my head, there's the dude with Marginal Counter who uses his super reflexes to move his sword so fast it seems like there's 4 of it instead of 1, with a stronger version that makes 8 appear, which evolves to make 16 appear. This is accomplished by speed, but the number of moves is the epicenter of the technique and not the increased power because there's no increased power despite the obviously faster movement.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

So that would be an instance that falls into the latter category

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

An example of speed augmenting power is Takemikazuchi from Touko, being her only move able to even barely damage Ouma and working by accelerating a thrust.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

Are these all from Rakudai specifically?

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

Yes. You can look up Touko in the Rakudai wiki, she's the glasses girl that uses electricity.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

Darn. So the series itself continually utilizes and then contradicts the same formula.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

@Sir

Wrong. Kuraudo is not "fast at moving" he's fast at reacting. It's not the same thing. He can perceive you move then move again after that because it takes less time for the info to reach his brain. Not because he moves his arm faster. The speed of the swing is the same, the reaction is faster, and faster reaction speed doesn't increase KE, because it needs "swing speed".

And not to contradict my point above, but dude Kuraudo is top tier in terms of AP, only falling behind Ouma and the like.

@Agnaa

In this case we're talking about a verse which does indeed consider speed as a main factor in damage. And there is also the fact that as i've said too many times it doesn't inflate the result. The verse is a tier 7 on its own without this feat. Literally even without a feat, this verse would go to 7-B. Having a feat at 7-A with all logical assumptions is not inflating, it's correcting. It'd be different if the verse went from tier 9 to tier 7 from a single feat.

@Aiden

Im sorry, but if you've made that many mistakes in calculating, why is that a reason to keep doing that? From what im getting it's like "There are 0 arguments to disprove my point, but we've done this before so we'll do this some more". If a dude could dodge a relativistic attack with ease, then at the same range couldn't dodge this attack, how is that not stating that the shoulder charge would be at baseline as fast as that? Is there any counter argument other than "it's not stated". Might as well go like "we cannot use calcs if they don't outright state all physic laws are the same even if they do look the same it has to be stated otherwise it doesn't apply". I mean yes it would be good, but the whole point of calcs is "how strong did the author meant to make this person". And with several mountain cutting feats in the verse (uncalcable), the verse itself being 7-B normally (without either of those calcs), and with this calc having every logical assumption to a point where it cannot be contradicted, why is this calc "not good".

Calc stacking is not the same. Calc Stacking is bad because no author calcs speed feats for direct results. He might be thinking that supersonic is enough for that feat, then it turns out the speed feat is like 10x or 100x greater than what he expected. It's way different if he outright states "yes this character is relativistic and this character is just as fast with this attack". Because in one you don't know the author's intention, in the other the author's intention is given to you on a silver plate.

The other problem with calc stacking is assumptions. Due to being 2 or more calcs in place, the number of assumptions extrapolates to heaven giving a rather unreal result. A good example would be the Medaka case of calc stacking. The number of assumption went from:

• Likely this much time (in the first calc)

to

• Likely this much time

• She probably used the same move here too

• She probably had shot the bullet

• The bullet probably crossed half the distance

• Medaka probably started moving as soon as the bullet was shot

It went from 1 to 5 giving a result from the casual FTL Medaka we know to a MFTL+ Medaka. The same cannot be said here, cus it uses no assumptions because it is not calc stacking.

 

[Andytrenom]

Agnaa is right, the case given here is not at all special compared to various other situations. If you have a problem with the calc stacking policies disqualifying it then you would have to start a discussion against calc stacking policies themselves.

The situation being different enough from others to warrant special treatment is not well substantiated and feels much more like sweeping the issues under the rug to let a double standard be implemented

 

[Agnaa]

And there is also the fact that as i've said too many times it doesn't inflate the result.

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that "Inflates the results" = "This is an outlier". That's not what an inflated result is.

If there's a verse with 8-B feats and you use shitty pixel scaling/an unreliable method to get an 8-A calc, it may not be an outlier, but the result is still inflated.

Hell, even if it's scientifically correct, and you use relativistic KE of 8x Newtonian KE to get an 8-A baseball, that result is still inflated. Even though it is scientifically correct, accurate to the source material, and not an outlier.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I do not seem to get your point of "why use relativistic KE". That's what im supposed to use. With relativistic speeds, that's what's always used.

And both your examples seem weird. Having wrong pixel scaling is not example. My calc is correct. The way i calced it is correct. The weight is correct. The whole discussion here is about the speed.

@Andy

I said it before, if no one here can give me a good argument other than "we did so before" then no. Rules aren't 100% flexible, so im not about to change standards about a single calc no one can prove me wrong on.

 

[Agnaa]

Jesus christ, I was thinking about clarifying it but I thought I wouldn't need to.

I was not saying YOU should not use relativistic KE. I am saying that IN MY EXAMPLE where relativstic KE gives 8 TIMES NEWTONIAN that it is considered an inflated calc.

Having wrong pixel scaling is not example. My calc is correct. The way i calced it is correct. The weight is correct.

That's why I gave a second example where everything is correct, it isn't an outlier, it's accurate to the text, and yet it would still be considered an inflated calc.

Your calc is inflated for reason A. I gave an example of another KE calc that's inflated for reason B. I am not saying that your calc is wrong for reason B.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

More "other" examples. Still nothing to say why my calc is inflated. Also calm down geez. You're neither staff nor knowledgeable on the verse. No need to get this worked up lol.

 

[Agnaa]

Me: Your calc is inflated because it uses speed from outside of the feat for the feat.

You: How could it be inflated? It's not an outlier.

Me: Here's an example of an inflated feat that's not an outlier.

You: Still nothing why my calc is inflated.

?????

 

[Andytrenom]

@Andy

I said it before, if no one here can give me a good argument other than "we did so before" then no. Rules aren't 100% flexible, so im not about to change standards about a single calc no one can prove me wrong on.

Fire just stop ignoring obvious problems of double standards that arise from this revision. It isn't so simple as "others think they're right because they've been doing a wrong thing a lot and that's why they're disagreeing" like you seem to have gotten the impression of. This is a problem of this one revision creating severe double standards for various other feats that have just as much credibility for KE which means the implications of this thread go far beyond just this one verse, and instead of recognizing this you just dismiss it as "we did so before"

No, you don't get to go against regulations so easily and pretend your claims of "being a special case" hold so much weight that we just make an exception, when it has been specifically contested whether it is in fact a special case or not. You're required to follow standards and liable to have your revision denied if they don't follow the standards, it is going to be that simple, and unless you can prove they follow standards or that it's a special case (which you haven't for the record) you definitely are not being allowed to make changes

 

[Firephoenixearl]

"uses speed outside to feat for the feat"

I mean, "you blitz someone who can dodge a relativistic attack, but we can't know for sure if it is relativistic". Dude are you serious now?