• 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.

References for Common Feats Requests and Evaluations Thread 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also I think we should separate each material in various groups (For wood, metals, non-metals, ceramics, synthetics and the like).
 
Wonder how strong you need to he to cause the moon to get an asynchronous rotation in spin-orbit resonance and would a character who did it by crashing into it get a lifting strength feat as well?
 
@Spinoirr That doesn't sound common at all.
 
I am busy irl, but I will pick some time to rework my previous works.

Then redo and merge the other common feats.

Hope it gets on time before the big migration. (Likely only be able to do so for my own works before the deadline)
 
Just so y'all know, the new rocks in Spino's blog being used will depend on the geography and geology of the location where the feat happens, same thing with wood.

For example, in places that are volcanic hotspots or where big stone castles exist, granite will be used or prolly basalt (Since basalt is abundant in the Palestine region). Or like, limestone can be found in caves and cenotes and underwater stuff.

Another example is, Italy and Greece are abundant with live oak (Quercus genre).

Half the times people wouldn't understand that kind of shit so while our current destruction values will remain, these new ones are for the calcs that rely on those specific geological places. Incredibly rare tho.
 
DeathstroketheHedgehog said:
I'm gonna assume that the new destruction values are accepted, and go ahead to start making updated calcs with those destruction values.
Click to expand...
You shouldn't just assume that. Who's verified & accepted them?
 
Again, these new values won't replace our current ones and I don't think we'll see them getting used that often either.

The wood one was also accepted quite a while back.
 
KLOL506 said:
Bambu for one has accepted them.
Click to expand...
He has? All he said on the blog was "Useful if it gets finished, good luck br0ther." and "As Spino said, stick to the current standards for the missing values if possible." These don't really sound like acceptance...
 
Spino was talking about the standards relating to using low-end shear strength to find the frag energy of the material and to use high-end shear strength or low-end unilaxial compressive strength for v. frag, I was using tensile strength (Surely enough, I messed up big time and Spino didn't use tensile strength except to figure out the shear strength), that's why Spino said that line and that's what he meant. Hope I got the confusion cleared.

You can ask Bambu yourself, I also later discussed this with Spino on his Message Wall.
 
KLOL506 said:
You can ask Bambu yourself, I also later discussed this with Spino on his Message Wall.
Click to expand...
I shouldn't need to ask Bambu myself.

You said that a calc group member accepted a calc, and I can't find that I have. You made the positive claim and need to substantiate it, by linking to Bambu accepting it.
 
I talked with Bambu here as well, he said he loved it. (This is another reference for common feats blog btw)

And I was talking about Spino's blog getting accepted, not other calcs as a whole.

Even then, you could ask him to comment again on the matter if you wish to get a solid conclusion.
 
I was talking about destruction values, not whatever you linked. I never brought up anything besides destruction values.

As an aside, I really wish calc group members would stop using ambiguous/jokey language when evaluating calcs, because I have no ******* clue what "I love that blog of 100 different calcs" means, but I'm not sure it means it's accepted.

Even then, you could ask him to comment again on the matter if you wish to get a solid conclusion.

I mean I just kinda care a lot about the process. If someone says "I'm gonna assume that this is accepted" and starts applying it when I can't find any evidence of it being accepted, then another person comes along and claims that someone accepted it still without providing evidence, I think we're going about things the wrong way.

You guys should be getting clarification before applying new methods. I should not have to wait for you to start applying something and then have to verify myself if it was actually accepted.
 
Here's the thread about the destruction values Spino and Bambu talked about which Spino carried out later.

Also Ant has messaged Spino about asking Executor N0 to apply the values in the recent messages just in case DT doesn't apply it in time.
 
Yeah well that thread's all Bambu said to follow for the destruction values thread, and he also made a comment about it on this thread. Not sure what more we need at this point.

Mr. Bambu said:
Allow me to quickly posit a new idea.
Destruction values are not actually that difficult to verify, especially not in a scenario where sources are cited directly. I'd be happy to check them and verify them and, after that, I think any particular calc group member could also dip in and say "yes, looks fine". And that would be fine, I believe.
Click to expand...
Either way, guess there's only one more person left to ask about this, Executor. I'll notify him of this.
 
@KLOL506 There's no unambiguous "I accept this" or "this looks good" there.

Bambu says in that post you quoted that he'd be happy to check and verify them, implying that he hasn't done that yet.

The message wall thread has him giving Spino advice on what to calculate, how to calculate, whether to use high end low end or average etc. It doesn't have him verifying it.
 
Wait, the blog still has a few more materials to be included. I'll notify Spino of them so that he can fully finish the blog before the results are applied.
 
I've asked Bambu. He hasn't accepted the blog yet, but he'll look it over now and will probably end up accepting it in a few minutes.

But everyone REALLY needs to stop jumping the gun on applying calcs. This is the second time in two lies people have just straight up lied about calcs being accepted and started applying them.
 
Thanks.

But again, in the end, most of the values in Spino's calc are like, suuuuuuuuuper specific. I don't think any of our recent calcs even use Spino's values. Even if they do, it's for super obscure feats specific locations.

If you can't figure out what wood or rock it is by looking at it and it's in a vague location, assume normal values for wood or rock (The ones we have on our site).
 
I'm more commenting on the sentiment from this post. I'm not familiar with any recent calcs you lot have done.

You shouldn't just assume that. Who's verified & accepted them?
 
Going mass-wide with it atm is obviously a big no-no, let's just wait a few minutes more. And I'm kinda doubting on deathstroke's claim that all his calcs need to be updated if there's no evidence that the material destroyed there is not just random rock or wood type.
 
Carbon on its own is iffy unless it's nanotubes we're talking about. I mean, who the hell smashes a chair made out of just carbon. Prolly should be re-worded to carbon fiber.

Diamond is indeed weird. People use it to tip drill heads in mines but it shatters if hit with a hammer (Though even that needs the diamond to be facing the pointy tip down).
 
Yeah, diamond's difficult to scratch, and from the wrong angle difficult to fragment, but from the right angle it fragments ludicrously easy.
 
Uhhh, no. That only applies to crystals, because of their symmetric/regular atomic structures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Agnaa
References for Common Feats Re-organization
2
Replies
54
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Napoleondevious
help with formula for Volcanos and tsunamis
Replies
0
Views
209
Napoleondevious
Napoleondevious
Dark_Soul20189
  • Locked
The Necessity for references rule change/addition
Replies
29
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Fallen_Angelicx
  • Locked
About Crushing Skulls
Replies
10
Views
3K
KingTempest
KingTempest
MaybeWantsToEdit
Can this calc be used?
Replies
6
Views
2K
KLOL506
KLOL506
Back
Top