• 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.

Ouma's Shoulder Charge

I have said and even ******* bolded me saying that I DISAGREE WITH THESE STANDARDS. You keep assigning me beliefs that I don't have. But if you want the standards to change, you need to make a CRT instead of letting a double standard remain. Like I have been saying since the start of the thread.

There's only so many times I can calmly say "I have never said that, I have said the exact opposite of that, stop putting shit in my mouth" before it gets frustrating.
 
As much as I like a calm discussion, I can't even blame Agnaa for his frustration. This is something that has to be dealt with by actually taking the effort to do something about the flawed standards, constantly ignoring this and the implications of the revision outside this one verse is legitimately problematic and a cause for worry
 
Ok i understand you guys, but as i said, i am not knowledgeable enough on these standards to make a CRT to turn the whole thing upside down. I need at least some help.
 
The best you can do is create a general discussion and just bring the need for a discussion first, while making sure you don't come off as hastily trying to bring giant revisions

As regrettable as it is, not everyone can make a revision about big topics like this and be given the same level of open mindedness, it's more pragmatic to do it this way because of that reason
 
Firephoenixearl said:
"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?
Click to expand...
That's Calc Stacking


Seriously, this feat is not special at all. It's the same as a ton of others we rejected, so why make a whole change to the Wiki's standards for questionable feat


I'm sorry, but I don't think this should be taken this far
 
@Aiden

It may meet our current definition of calc-stacking (even though all the speeds come from statements rather than calcs), but if that's what it takes for this feat to be entirely disregarded then that's an obvious flaw in the system that is accomplishing nothing at the moment but preventing a perfectly reasonable result from occurring
 
Ok so in an attempt to revive this, i am gonna have to ask @Spinosaurus and @Aiden for your attention here once again.

So being a fairly discussed topic at this point, i've reached the conclusion that this is really just about how you interpret Calc Stacking rules. So a quick summary:

Touka's attack is proven to be relativistic everytime it is used.

Ikki was stated to be able to dodge that attack.

The same Ikki moments later is unable to dodge an attack from Ouma, but can finish a move that requires somewhat less time to perform (blocking).

Do you think that due to the way this is handled it could not be called "calc stacking" due to lacking any significant assumptions in the speed departament? Since it would be fairly safe to assume that Ouma would have to be at least relativistic to perform that feat. And due to the fact that Ikki allows for Ouma and Touka to be directly compared (Touka was not fast enough to pull a certain feat, while Ouma was fast enough for it or in other words

In the same scenario, in the same range, Ouma performed a move faster than Touka could).
 
Sir Ovens said:
Bambu has stated that this isn't calc stacking to begin with.
Click to expand...
Yet Spino and Aiden said it is calc stacking.
 
I still believe this is calc stacking

I already said how we handled other feats like this before.

Yes, the speed comes from an statment, but the logic here: A characters has X speed, B is as fast or faster than A, yet C can outsped A. That works for scaling, but that's calc stacking, even if a calc of the speed isn't involved.
 
Yes but the lack of assumptions makes this not have the same problems. Attack B performed better than a relativistic attack so it doesn't have the assumption stacking.
 
I concur with Earl and Agnaa on this point. If our rule regarding calc-stacking leads to reasonable results like this being completely disregarded for illogical reasons, then it's a serious flaw in how we determine what is calc-stacking and what isn't.
 
It isn't exactly illogical with the consistency fiction has of disregarding the importance of speed for the increment of force.

Personally, I only remember actual speed mattering when there is a direct statement of said speed and something in said scene denoting that the speed in question actually factors in or changes the potency in anyway, at least for calcs like this. And still, it's usually defaulted with "and higher with".
 
That makes sense, it just seemed like the earlier argument for not using it was "some users might use this to unfairly upgrade the verses they like" which had nothing to do with how correct it was in the current situation.
 
It is illogical considering the amount of speed feats littered in the novels. There's no reason to assume the speed is inconsistent throughout because speed of characters is always gradually increasing. So there's no reason to assume Ikki and the other high tiers speed suddenly dropped or is non existent because it isn't stated specifically for one case.
 
Actually read what I said. "and something in said scene denoting that the speed in question actually factors in or changes the potency in anyway."

Think Flash's infinite mass punch.
 
Did you, literally dismiss and apparently forget what Aiden said above?

It's fine if you disagree with what he's saying but you think that's not an issue? Nani?
 
Those aren't issues as Earl pointed out.

Ouma and Ikki are clearly comparable in speed and Ikki is confirmed relatavistic+ yet gets outsped by Ouma. That isn't calc stacking because it's just scaling between two characters used everywhere on the wiki. So Ouma being relativistic+ isn't a problem.
 
EmperorRorepme said:
Those aren't issues as Earl pointed out.

Ouma and Ikki are clearly comparable in speed and Ikki is confirmed relatavistic+ yet gets outsped by Ouma. That isn't calc stacking because it's just scaling between two characters used everywhere on the wiki. So Ouma being relativistic+ isn't a problem.
Click to expand...
As Aiden said.

That works for scaling, but that's calc stacking, even if a calc of the speed isn't involved.
 
Apparently when scaling's used for a calc it is.
 
The fact that Ouma scales is not a problem, I don't see when has this ever been said, he obviously can scale

The fact that he scales so we use this as justification for a KE calc is the actual problem. As Aiden clearly said, "That works for scaling, but that's calc stacking, even if a calc of the speed isn't involved."
 
Character A has relatavistic+ combat feats and attacks with the return strike of lightning. Character B can attack faster than her and consistently dodge her attacks. Character C can attack faster than Character A by virtue of tagging character B.

Ouma scakes.

Ouma's speed is used for a calc.

Where is the calc stack?
 
When the speed obtained from scaling is used in a KE calculation.
 
This is what I mean. There's no logic to that whatsoever. Why should scaling for his speed even be relevant if the scaling is correct. His speed is by default at that position.
 
Not to mention I still have my personal issues about speed denoting actual increase in power.

I am honestly rather neutral on calc stacking business, but this is something I totally abide by.
 
EmperorRorepme said:
This is what I mean. There's no logic to that whatsoever. Why should scaling for his speed even be relevant if the scaling is correct. His speed is by default at that position.
Click to expand...
I have been consistent with my position throughout this entire thread.

1. I think it's technically calc stacking under the current rules.

2. I think the rules should be changed.

Since Bambu closed the thread about changing the regulatio without any consensus on it, I've asked him to re-open it. Can you please argue there about why it shouldn't be calc stacking and how we should change the regulations to allow feats like this?
 
Yet not even other calc members think it's calc stacking so at this point, it's just arguing opinions. So if not all calc members do not agree that our rules about it say it's calc stacking it would be only fair for those who do believe it is, to give a form of argument as to why it is flawed and why it doesn't work.

Because as we learned it's not really that the rules say it, it's more so that you can interpret the rules that way. So in a form of scaling where 2 speeds are compared directly using no assumptions, why would it be considered the same as math which includes several assumptions?
 
A lot of examples of calc stacking don't actually require several assumptions though.

Character A has a certain speed through a calculation. He can not dodge the projectiles from character B from 2 meter distance. But Character C can dodge them from 1 meter distance, so character C has to be twice as fast as character A.
This is a simple multiplier with no extra assumptions needed, but the page puts it under "Examples of calc-stacking that can not be applied".
 
That's because the first speed comes from a calculation, which includes assumptions. Which adds questionability to the whole scaling as it carries on the assumptions of the calc. Whereas in this case the scaling happens before the assumptions get added, making the assumptions non-existent up until the actual calc happens (which itself doesn't include assumptions but ok).
 
My point was that the "calc stacking" can happen without the "calc stacking" part adding any assumptions. But if your point's that it's only calc stacking when it starts with assumptions then builds on them without any extra assumptions, then my point's irrelevant.
 
Oh, ok i was more meaning to say that "calc stacking without calc seems to be more of an opinion rather than a rule, so it would just boil down to can you find flaws in my calc?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Apollonir.Scale
Bakugan Calc
Replies
4
Views
1K
Apollonir.Scale
Apollonir.Scale
Experiment12
  • Article
1A Chavalry of a failed knight
Replies
8
Views
2K
Shereen
Shereen
GunshyFever
  • Locked
Chainsaw Man LS Upgrade
Replies
29
Views
2K
Duedate8898
Duedate8898
PowerToScale
Can I get some one to review this calculation?
Replies
3
Views
783
PowerToScale
PowerToScale
Shadow_x007x
Correct Dr. Stone's calculations
Replies
8
Views
447
Shadow_x007x
Shadow_x007x
Back
Top