Quick Re:Zero Downgrade

[Lilybitdun]

"Continuous were the sounds of blows clashing, the rain of destruction, the impacts which bid tears from the sky above, as dark clouds were torn asunder, giving birth to light."

Couldn't this just mean each blow were splitting clouds? I'm not really sure how multiple blows = one split of a cloud makes much sense unless we're assuming the clouds are being split like how you would chop lumber.
"(...) the impacts which bid tears from the sky above, as dark clouds were torn asunder (...)"
it's noted how multiple impacts cause multiple clouds to be split, implying a direct correlation to amount of blows to amount of clouds split; not multiple impacts = one cloud split.

 

[Phoenks]

Couldn't this just mean each blow were splitting clouds? I'm not really sure how multiple blows = one split of a cloud makes much sense unless we're assuming the clouds are being split like how you would chop lumber.
"(...) the impacts which bid tears from the sky above, as dark clouds were torn asunder (...)"
it's noted how multiple impacts cause multiple clouds to be split, implying a direct correlation to amount of blows to amount of clouds split; not multiple impacts = one cloud split.

Multiple impacts = the feat that the calculation is calculating must be divided amongst those impacts.

Idk how to simplify this any further. Ask any calc mod and they'll tell ya the same thing.

 

[SatellaTheWoE]

Multiple impacts = the feat that the calculation is calculating must be divided amongst those impacts.

Idk how to simplify this any further. Ask any calc mod and they'll tell ya the same thing.

it says multiple hits to split multiple clouds? it doesnt say multiple impacts to tear just 1 cloud, what you are saying would be applicable if it was a single cloud

 

[VortechsTG]

Multiple impacts = the feat that the calculation is calculating must be divided amongst those impacts.

Idk how to simplify this any further. Ask any calc mod and they'll tell ya the same thing.

They're saying the text likely suggests each impact individually causes the feat. And I agree it does probably mean that, but since it isn't definitive I also agree with not using it.

 

[Zabazab]

The narrative makes it out to be more of an aesthetic than a showcase of power with those words. Yet the pages interpret that as though it means "it's weak and anyone can perform attacks that output enough power to split clouds."

Would agree with you that it shouldn't be treated how it is even outside of the calculation issues.

Cutting clouds still requires power. It's not like it's an illusion. It's why every single top-tier has done it, like Reinhard's attack on Elsa splitting the sky, or Volcanica clearing the Sand Sea's clouds just to kill some birds, or Echidna doing it because she just didn't want an overcast sky.

Cecilus and Arakiya are just such monsters that they don't consider Rowan's cloud-cutting technique as particularly impressive. The point of Rowan's character was to build him up as actually being a problem only to reveal he's nothing compared to the first-class. They do this thrice with him.

 

[Ghostimuscrime]

The problem with that second calculation is that it wasn't a singular attack or even a singular person which performed the feat, yet it is calculated as though it was. That's an issue.

When there is a number of attacks the calculation has to be divided by that number. But in this case, we don't even know how many attacks it took to "tear the clouds asunder," so it's an unusable calculation and likely can't even be re-calced due to that added vagueness. In addition to other issues.

gonna have to disagree and side with the supporters on this one, multiple hits resulting in the feat doesn't even work, as I elaborated earlier that it's not like the hits charge up energy which leads to a released explosion that tears the clouds, cloud splits usually occur due to release of a short burst of energy not continuously flowing energy, so people's normal attacks should fully scale to this, I agree that the final result should be split between the people that performed the feat tho.

 

[Lilybitdun]

Multiple impacts = the feat that the calculation is calculating must be divided amongst those impacts.

Idk how to simplify this any further. Ask any calc mod and they'll tell ya the same thing.

it says multiple hits to split multiple clouds? it doesnt say multiple impacts to tear just 1 cloud, what you are saying would be applicable if it was a single cloud

They're saying the text likely suggests each impact individually causes the feat. And I agree it does probably mean that, but since it isn't definitive I also agree with not using it.

As both Satella and Vortechs brought up, I'm saying the text is implying each impact is causing cloud splits. Not that multiple impacts are causing one cloud split. It would still be divided by the two who performed it though
I still think the calc themselves need to be redone, the 5% of diameter thing is completely arbitrary

 

[SatellaTheWoE]

So instead of 5% what would be more appropriate?

 

[Phoenks]

it says multiple hits to split multiple clouds? it doesnt say multiple impacts to tear just 1 cloud, what you are saying would be applicable if it was a single cloud

gonna have to disagree and side with the supporters on this one, multiple hits resulting in the feat doesn't even work, as I elaborated earlier that it's not like the hits charge up energy which leads to a released explosion that tears the clouds, cloud splits usually occur due to release of a short burst of energy not continuously flowing energy, so people's normal attacks should fully scale to this, I agree that the final result should be split between the people that performed the feat tho.

As both Satella and Vortechs brought up, I'm saying the text is implying each impact is causing cloud splits. Not that multiple impacts are causing one cloud split. It would still be divided by the two who performed it though
I still think the calc themselves need to be redone, the 5% of diameter thing is completely arbitrary

The calculation is assuming they split the horizon in one attack, using the 20km value for the horizon. It isn't just calculating the split of a singular cloud. That is the issue.

Therefore, I'll use this information about the horizon that states that it is around 20km according to cloud calculation itself.

Speed - (20000m/2)/5s = 2000 m/s. Cloud Area - pi * (20000/2)^2 = 314159265 m^2

If it was just calculating them splitting one cloud, then that would probably be fine, but that isn't the case.

 

[Ghostimuscrime]

Clouds can't really be quantified like that, if the horizon is filled by clouds everywhere that is one cloud, a big one, can't even assert there were multiple clouds spread across the sky because then splitting those wouldn't give birth to light, that would be pre existing everywhere

 

[Zabazab]

People are both correct that multiple clashes are causing multiple holes in the cloudcover, and that the calc is bad bc it doesn't account for this, although the calc also mixed up cloud height with height above the surface.

 

[Lilybitdun]

So instead of 5% what would be more appropriate?

The simple way would be using the thickness of the blade as that would be the absolute minimum
Another way would be taking the method used in this but for size instead of distance to find the smallest distance that would be visible from the ground

References for Common Feats

Throughout fiction and real life, there have been numerous feats demonstrating a certain character's or object's destructive power. This page's purpose is to consolidate calculations for those feats for better convenience in determining an object's or character's Attack Potency or Durability...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Angular Size Calculator

Angle: 0.001 rads / 0.05729578 degrees
Distance: 8304.8m
Size / width of cut: 8.3048m

 

[Lilybitdun]

People are both correct that multiple clashes are causing multiple holes in the cloudcover, and that the calc is bad bc it doesn't account for this, although the calc also mixed up cloud height with height above the surface.

I do feel like the second calc is bunked then since there's no way to quantify the size of each hole in the cloudcover in / the size of the individual clouds being split. Gotta wait till visual adaptation eventually, or hopefully, clarifies it

 

[SatellaTheWoE]

No visual confirmation for Wilhelm trilogy i fear

(Ex novels aren't getting animated anytime soon)

 

[VortechsTG]

I do feel like the second calc is bunked then since there's no way to quantify the size of each hole in the cloudcover in / the size of the individual clouds being split. Gotta wait till visual adaptation eventually, or hopefully, clarifies it

There is never going to be a visual adaptation and even if there were by some divine miracle from God above it would not show the clouds being affected at all

 

[Lilybitdun]

Yeah I think it's pretty uncalcable then lol

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Bump

 

[Phoenks]

It seems that the general consensus is that the feat is too vague to be calculated in the way that it is. I'm also not sure that any other fair redo of the calculation would give you anything special.

So I think the best conclusion for this thread is just the downgrade them to the next best valid calculation. Does anyone know what that is?

 

[Lilybitdun]

I had made a recalc of the cloud splitting feat but I'm still waiting for it be evaluated, I do think the general consensus is that the second feat is incalculable tho

 

[Phoenks]

I had made a recalc of the cloud splitting feat but I'm still waiting for it be evaluated, I do think the general consensus is that the second feat is incalculable tho

Where is your recalc?

 

[MrTayman616]

Where is your recalc?

This one

ReZero: Ceci's Cloud Cleave Recalc

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Phoenks]

Oh, cool. @Dalesean027

 

[Lilybitdun]

Oh yeah I forgot you're able to just ping CGMs, I would've posted it here earlier if I realized lol

 

[Zabazab]

This one

ReZero: Ceci's Cloud Cleave Recalc

vsbattles.fandom.com

If this version's more robust then I'm all for it. I had also made a calc of Flugel's Tree falling that tried to avoid the issues that came with the anime making the White Whale way bigger than 50 metres, which plagues the other two calcs of the tree, by just using the textual descriptions of Flugel's Tree.

 

[MrTayman616]

If this version's more robust then I'm all for it. I had also made a calc of Flugel's Tree falling that tried to avoid the issues that came with the anime making the White Whale way bigger than 50 metres, which plagues the other two calcs of the tree, by just using the textual descriptions of Flugel's Tree.

Can't you use this?

 

[DaReaperMan]

This one

ReZero: Ceci's Cloud Cleave Recalc

vsbattles.fandom.com

I got it evaluated. You are now all 8-A

 

[Lilybitdun]

I got it evaluated. You are now all 8-A

Sick, thanks man

 

[MrTayman616]

I got it evaluated. You are now all 8-A

%90 of the matchups are dead

 

[DaReaperMan]

%90 of the matchups are dead

And now... welcome to my other main tier.

 

[Lilybitdun]

Zab's calc could boost them back up to town level but it def seems like the mid-tiers aren't returning to mountain level anytime soon
but idk I haven't read the series so maybe there's some random goated feat

 

[Zabazab]

Can't you use this?

Trying to avoid using other characters to scale the tree, and Otsuka is unironically worse than the anime in terms of keeping sizes consistent. Valgren is bigger than Volcanica if you use his art.

 

[MrTayman616]

Trying to avoid using other characters to scale the tree, and Otsuka is unironically worse than the anime in terms of keeping sizes consistent. Valgren is bigger than Volcanica if you use his art.

I'm not sure about the examples as i never looked at the illustrations to check size (For Re:Zero).

Also why would he be bigger than Volcanica? Isn't Volcanica still like above 20 meters when you look at the art?

 

[Phoenks]

Though I just realized I haven't actually got this thread accepted lmao

 

[Zabazab]

I'm not sure about the examples as i never looked at the illustrations to check size (For Re:Zero).

Also why would he be bigger than Volcanica? Isn't Volcanica still like above 20 meters when you look at the art?

Volcanica looks like a manlet Dragon in Otsuka's art, roughly 10m tall give or take a few metres. Definitely not big enough to comfortably fit a person in its mouth as is described in volume 41. Meanwhile Valgren's jaws could easily fit two people in them as shown in Ex6. There's more examples too, manlet Volcanica just sucks the most imo.

 

[SatellaTheWoE]

holon, major re zero W here

 

[MrTayman616]

Though I just realized I haven't actually got this thread accepted lmao

Also isn't this suppose to be "calc discussion" rather than content revision?

 

[Arkenis]

These feats are just completely unusable. How in the hell were novel cloud feats being accepted?

When there is a number of attacks the calculation has to be divided by that number. But in this case, we don't even know how many attacks it took to "tear the clouds asunder," so it's an unusable calculation and likely can't even be re-calced due to that added vagueness. In addition to other issues.

Uh generally agree except it says tears, meaning multiple tears were done, not one but still yeah we have no idea if every single attack caused a tear or if several caused each tear. We also have no clue the size of these tears.

 

[Lilybitdun]

These feats are just completely unusable. How in the hell were novel cloud feats being accepted?


Uh generally agree except it says tears, meaning multiple tears were done, not one but still yeah we have no idea if every single attack caused a tear or if several caused each tear. We also have no clue the size of these tears.

I already brought up how it is each clash is causing a tear and not multiple attacks causing one tear. Doesn't matter much tho since the size of cuts aren't quantifable so that feat is pretty bunk

for the first one, the 5 second end of my recalc that fixes the arbitrary diameter problem got accepted
I had included a vaporization version in the recalc as well if yall think splitting doesn't mean KE; tho that part of it wasn't evaluated and is much higher at Small Town level

 

[Phoenks]

The biggest issue is it assumes the entire horizon is being cut apart which is not supported by anything in the text.

Regardless I actually need staffs to agree lol

 

[Lilybitdun]

The biggest issue is it assumes the entire horizon is being cut apart which is not supported by anything in the text.

I mean that's the general assumption with 99% of cloud feats when there isn't a way to directly measure their size