- 9,351
- 8,166
- Thread starter
- #121
Fine to me, and thanks again!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
None of these streaks are small enough to qualify as stars. They're all galaxies. Accretion limit would be exceeded with even the smallest of dots. Before I uploaded my calc I used the old 6400-light-year assumption for Chakra to measure these dots, even the smallest one did not go below 30+ light-years in diameter.I'm not sure they are galaxies, they are just shiny thingies that fly past Asura at high speed, could be stars or just graphic effects.
I'd go safe and stick with those which orbit around Chakra.
None of these streaks are small enough to qualify as stars. They're all galaxies. Accretion limit would be exceeded with even the smallest of dots. Before I uploaded my calc I used the old 6400-light-year assumption for Chakra to measure these dots, even the smallest one did not go below 30+ light-years in diameter.
If you still don't wanna use that one because it's outside Chakra's clouded orbit area, then this is the next best candidate. It's bright blue, looks far more similar to the galaxies around Chakra and is in close proximity within the other galaxies and within the clouded orbit area. The explosion radius would still reach the far edge of this clouded area, though the px size for the radius would remain the same, at around 882-900px
What do you think about using the average of 151,500 light years for galaxy diameter?This LOL
Bit of a toss-up really, but I still think using the Milky Way Galaxy is much more accurate, given that it serves as a standard for galaxies as a whole on planet Earth and all that jazz.What do you think about using the average of 151,500 light years for galaxy diameter?
Yes. It'd go straight to 3-B now. Assuming we use the largest available galaxy in the cloud surrounding Chakra, which I marked above in the green circle (The galaxy is a bright aqua blue).And how would your explosion calc be changed since the galaxies around Chakravatin are now, well, actual galaxies?
True, but Wikipedia says that galaxies in general range from 3000 to 300000 light years in diameter.Bit of a toss-up really, but I still think using the Milky Way Galaxy is much more accurate, given that it serves as a standard for galaxies as a whole on planet Earth and all that jazz.
I know it's 3-B, but when I tried calcing it I couldn't figure what to use in place of your listed distance to the sun, but even with that gargantuan lowball I still got like 130-something yottafoe (easily 3-B).Yes. It'd go straight to 3-B now. Assuming we use the largest available galaxy in the cloud surrounding Chakra, which I marked above in the green circle (The galaxy is a bright aqua blue).
Speed feats obviously take a increase too.
Sorry man.More work for me. Yay!
Yes please.So, should I update my calc and remove the "center of the Milky Way Galaxy" thing?
Yes.So, should I update my calc and remove the "center of the Milky Way Galaxy" thing?
If the statue is 520,000 light years, and the explosion covers an area vastly larger than it, why is the target only 50,000 light years?Done.
Asura's Wrath: Chakravartin's Greatest Hits
vsbattles.fandom.com
Should I separate it into Three Separate Blogs? It's become quite bloated IMHO, plus rules now state you gotta separate multiple calcs into separate blogs.
Though they happen in the same exact fight, so IDK.
You need to find the difference between the explosive radius and the target radius. That's how the inverse-square law works in general. Same way with blowing up the Sun from the Earth. Bigger explosive radius, smaller target radius. Smaller the target radius, harder it is to blow it up because it wouldn't be hit right thus requiring more juice to blow up.If the statue is 520,000 light years, and the explosion covers an area vastly larger than it, why is the target only 50,000 light years?
Also, it boggles me how the calc for his big moon that dwarfs the nearby galaxies is only in the petafoe.
Makes sense.You need to find the difference between the explosive radius and the target radius. That's how the inverse-square law works in general. Same way with blowing up the Sun from the Earth. Bigger explosive radius, smaller target radius. Smaller the target radius, harder it is to blow it up because it wouldn't be hit right thus requiring more juice to blow up.
Whups, skill issue on my part, was only talking about the inverse-square law.Makes sense.
Why did you quote what I said about the moon?
It just confuses me how a galaxy-sized moon is not tier 3.
Is the inverse square law connected to why the galaxy-sized moon isn't galaxy level?Whups, skill issue on my part, was only talking about the inverse-square law.
Nah LOL, no need to worry about that part.Is the inverse square law connected to why the galaxy-sized moon isn't galaxy level?
?Nah LOL, no need to worry about that part.
Inverse-square law ain't involved with the moon.
Ok then.Inverse-square law ain't involved with the moon.
Ok then.
I will still forever be salty that a 3-C sized moon is nowhere near 3-C, though.
Blame the Black Hole laws
1. I bet if it was Kratos destroying a moon you'd be fine with it
Logically speaking, it should but black hole formulae be black hole formulae.2. But seriously, how does destroying something bigger than a galaxy not get at least a tier 3 rating?
There needs to be some sort of exception for that or something.Logically speaking, it should but black hole formulae be black hole formulae.
Thank you, imho the blog can stay as it is, since all the feats happen more or less in the same instance, and it's not that bloated.Done.
Asura's Wrath: Chakravartin's Greatest Hits
vsbattles.fandom.com
Should I separate it into Three Separate Blogs? It's become quite bloated IMHO, plus rules now state you gotta separate multiple calcs into separate blogs.
Though they happen in the same exact fight, so IDK.
If you say so.Thank you, imho the blog can stay as it is, since all the feats happen more or less in the same instance, and it's not that bloated.
Ninatons got changed to Ronnatons a few months back so the actual gap is 1,6X. A small thing overall but it does explain the upscaling.I noticed that as of now, characters on Deus's level and above upscale to High 5-A out of the fact that hemurderstomps Yasha in one of the hidden episodes. The problem is that there's about a 1600x or so difference from the current calc (9.9 ninatons) to baseline High 5-A (16 ronnatons).
I swear I looked everywhere for calcs, but there's no one going so high, and even the previous CRT mentions the stomp as the reason for the upscale.
It's simply way too much of a difference, so I'm proposing to make all the current High 5-A characters simply At least 5-A. I get that the scaling chain is huge, but there's just no way to tell how much.
BruhNinatons got changed to Ronnatons a few months back so the actual gap is 1,6X. A small thing overall but it does explain the upscaling.
Then I'm fine, especially if we consider how big the scaling chain is from the Asura who killed Wyzen to Deus.Ninatons got changed to Ronnatons a few months back so the actual gap is 1,6X. A small thing overall but it does explain the upscaling.
Shouldn’t Yasha have a key for DLC and new rating? Especially since Episode 21 key Asura’s justification is scaling to a peak YashaYasha should remain Large Planet, since he still got KO'd by Deus and from then on he was only a support to Asura, at least not to such an extent to warrant the upscaling.
If everyone's fine with that, I'll update the sandbox and apply the changes to Asura and the new tiers to the others, while I work on their new files.