• 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.

RWBY vol 8 discussion thread

Would also like to point out that post volume 6, every bullet timing feat is done so casually that the characters done even have to look at the bullets to block or dodge them or block dozens of bullets while in the middle of a casual conversation
 
WeeklyBattles said:
that the characters done even have to look at the bullets to block or dodge them or block dozens of bullets while in the middle of a casual conversation
Click to expand...
Which has nothing to do with speed and everything to do with senses and precision.

If the "blocks dozens of bullets" feat is higher than any of our current bullet calcs, go ahead and calc it.

WeeklyBattles said:
None of them are
Click to expand...
Cool, list them.
 
@Matthew_Schroeder From what I can tell Matt you're under the assumption that the entire verse would be mhs which is not correct, only volume 6 onward would be, and there arent any ani feats for this, theres actually a lot of supporting feats for it, such as Mercury in volume 3 casually noping ruby out of her semblance with a kick when her semblance in that key was shown to blitz hypersonic+ characters
 
Dargoo_Faust said:
I don't see why we'd consider this to be the same speed as cloud-to-ground lightning.

It has a higher AP value than regular lightning, fulfilling one requirement, however it acts nothing like actual electricity while in air, travelling in a solid, straight, continuous beam when fired rather than arcing. It also terminated as it leaves the Grimm; lightning connects directly to the source and to the ground/target. The energy beam does seem to be electrically charged since Sun conducts it through metal, however the jarring difference in movement in appearance means it fails our standards for Lightning Feats.

For reference, this is what real lightning looks like while moving through air. (EDIT: Wrong link, oof. Fixed now)




It's even worse because we see real Lightning in the series and the beam looks and moves nothing like that. Therefore I wouldn't consider the Grimm lightning in this case to be MHS. I've also talked to other calc members off-site about this and they seem to agree that these facts make it fail our standards, too.
Click to expand...
I also wanted to address this as well. So we agree it meets a few of the requirements to be comparable to natural lightning. it has the AP and is conductive.
Now I don't if you meant "movement and appearance" or just "in" but if so then I would question what does it have to look like? The appearance seems quite arbitrary in nature. If you didn't mean that then yes, it doesn't arc. But obviously, if it did this wouldn't really a point of discussion.

So what exactly does "significantly less" mean in this case? Are we being denotative? Because that would just mean "meaningfully reduced". If not then explain what exactly it means. As well as who determines whether it fits the criteria.

It's not worse. It obviously not trying to resemble natural lightning.
From Companion Guide:
An airborne Sea Feilong strafes targets by spitting lightning blasts from its mouth. Tremendously durable, a Sea Feilong can shrug off cannon bursts and causally shatter multiton rock formations.
Click to expand...
 
WeeklyBattles said:
@Matthew_Schroeder From what I can tell Matt you're under the assumption that the entire verse would be mhs which is not correct, only volume 6 onward would be, and there arent any ani feats for this, theres actually a lot of supporting feats for it, such as Mercury in volume 3 casually noping ruby out of her semblance with a kick when her semblance in that key was shown to blitz hypersonic+ characters
Click to expand...
Personally, I think its the end of V5 onward but I'll take what I can get. Especially since V6 is only two weeks later. And lasts only three days.
 
> I would question what does it have to look like? The appearance seems quite arbitrary in nature. If you didn't mean that then yes, it doesn't arc. But obviously, if it did this wouldn't really a point of discussion.

I posted a picture of how lightning moves and what it looks like. It branches and arcs significantly, it doesn't move in a straight line.

Lighting also does not stop touching/contacting the cloud until it reaches the ground/target. The beams the Grimm fires aren't continuous between the Feilong and its targets when it hits the targets.

> So what exactly does "significantly less" mean in this case? Are we being denotative? Because that would just mean "meaningfully reduced". If not then explain what exactly it means. As well as who determines whether it fits the criteria.

Generally speaking, from how I've seen this rule applied, if the electricity doesn't look or act like real electricity it isn't given the speed of cloud-to-ground lightning, similar to how we don't give generic blasters lightspeed if they obviously don't act like light in some capacity.

Our calc members determine whether or not it fits the criteria. I consulted a few, such as @The_real_cal_howard (EDIT: He's retired from the position currently but should still understand our standards well), offsite and he agreed that these properties (moving in a straight beam, terminating from the source before it hits the target) makes the lightning unrealistic. I'm also a calc member myself and don't find it to meet our criteria.

> It obviously not trying to resemble natural lightning.

Then there's no reason to assume it has the same speed as natural lightning. It's as simple as that.
 
Dargoo_Faust said:
> you just restructured the analogy while failing to grasp what was being analogized. And you didn't actually point out the contradict either. You pretty just was the same thing.

I restructured the analogy because the previous analogy was didn't actually line up with anything that happened with Mercury. Mercury has every reason to avoid getting hit by a bolt like that yet he didn't despite the fact that he could easily have seen it coming all the way up until the point where it's already been fired, if MHS is to be believed. Your analogy didn't account for the majority of the context in that feat, and was therefore faulty.

> Also, you should know that Yang and Weiss don't have any feats of dodging lightning. Nor do they even scale to it at that point in the Volume.

And you should know this is Yang and Weiss in Volume 5. They fight Mercury in this volume and aren't speedblitzed by him.

> These aren't technically "new" arguments I'm pretty I have brought it up before. But regardless you don't seem to be fully comprehending them. But I suppose I don't really need to convince you specifically of anything.

By "not new" I mean that these same exact points were debated and rejected on Kep's thread.

You don't have to convince me of anything, yes, but at the same time you should make arguments for the feats that don't involve having to (I'm not saying you're making these assumptions directly, but you'd need to for the logic to work here) make assumptions that Yang/Weiss can't see things directly in front of them, or that Mercury decided for no reason to let himself get hit by something he could have, if calcs are to be believed, easily dodged.

> I know but you can justify an opinion. That why I wanted clarification.

Well, I have been arguing this opinion for around a day on this thread, so I wouldn't say it's unsubstantiated or unjustified, I'd just say there's people who disagree with it. I'm stating that my opinion hasn't changed with the debate so far - I haven't conceded the argument yet, clearly.

> You didn't address the actual point on that one. He stilled guarded before it him, not that we actually know where the bolt was moving in relation to him at all. We just see it being sent and then the impact.

Going by the feat in a frame-by-frame, there's a frame where the bolt is right next to him and the next frame is it hitting him while he's blocking. From how it's framed it looks like it hit him, then he began blocking, although we don't actually see him move to do this on screen because there's literally no movement between these frames I could find. Blame the RWBY animators for that one.

So no, there isn't evidence of him guarding before it hit him.


If any of these four are the Grimm lightning calcs above, I have already explained that they fail our standards for realistic lightning.
Click to expand...
The point of the analogy was to illustrate to you that the supposed "anti-feat" isn't actually contradicting anything. So it doesn't even matter. I am not even trying to justify why he didn't dodge it. I don't care because it doesn't matter.

Yes, I know that Volume 5. Again this simply doesn't contradict anything. The fight later on which is where they get their scaling from.

I wasn't making assumptions you just were understanding what my point was. But I kinda already addressed it in the first line. In fact, that would kind of be a strawman to say that "Yang/Weiss can't see things directly in front of them, or that Mercury decided for no reason to let himself get hit by something he could have, if calcs are to be believed, easily dodged". This was never what I was saying anyway.

The blocking was just a side point. Not super relevant anyway. But we simply can't assume anything at that point. All we know is that once it hit him he was blocking. We could go Occam's razor but seems unnecessary.
 
Dargoo_Faust said:
> I would question what does it have to look like? The appearance seems quite arbitrary in nature. If you didn't mean that then yes, it doesn't arc. But obviously, if it did this wouldn't really a point of discussion.

I posted a picture of how lightning moves and what it looks like. It branches and arcs significantly, it doesn't move in a straight line.

Lighting also does not stop touching/contacting the cloud until it reaches the ground/target. The beams the Grimm fires aren't continuous between the Feilong and its targets when it hits the targets.

> So what exactly does "significantly less" mean in this case? Are we being denotative? Because that would just mean "meaningfully reduced". If not then explain what exactly it means. As well as who determines whether it fits the criteria.

Generally speaking, from how I've seen this rule applied, if the electricity doesn't look or act like real electricity it isn't given the speed of cloud-to-ground lightning, similar to how we don't give generic blasters lightspeed if they obviously don't act like light in some capacity.

Our calc members determine whether or not it fits the criteria. I consulted a few, such as @The_real_cal_howard (EDIT: He's retired from the position currently but should still understand our standards well), offsite and he agreed that these properties (moving in a straight beam, terminating from the source before it hits the target) makes the lightning unrealistic. I'm also a calc member myself and don't find it to meet our criteria.

> It obviously not trying to resemble natural lightning.

Then there's no reason to assume it has the same speed as natural lightning. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...
So how does that all in line with this?
Lightning that has demonstrated at a minimum a few properties that real lightning has, and significantly less properties that lightning shouldn't have, can be considered real.
Click to expand...
Additionally, for calculations that involve lightning speed, one has to consider that the speed of real electricity can change due to a variety of factors, but for practical purposes, concerning attacks that are electricity-based, if they display power comparable to that of natural lightning, they should be considered to move at a comparable speed.
Click to expand...
As I can tell, the Sea Feilong would meet these necessary requirements. The only room for arbitration is what I already asked for. How it is applied doesn't matter because it should follow the set standards. So can you please explain to me what VSB considers to be "significantly less"? If you don't know then just say that.
 
Community_Gamer said:
The point of the analogy was to illustrate to you that the supposed "anti-feat" isn't actually contradicting anything. So it doesn't even matter. I am not even trying to justify why he didn't dodge it. I don't care because it doesn't matter.

Yes, I know that Volume 5. Again this simply doesn't contradict anything. The fight later on which is where they get their scaling from.

I wasn't making assumptions you just were understanding what my point was. But I kinda already addressed it in the first line. In fact, that would kind of be a strawman to say that "Yang/Weiss can't see things directly in front of them, or that Mercury decided for no reason to let himself get hit by something he could have, if calcs are to be believed, easily dodged". This was never what I was saying anyway.

The blocking was just a side point. Not super relevant anyway. But we simply can't assume anything at that point. All we know is that once it hit him he was blocking. We could go Occam's razor but seems unnecessary.
Click to expand...

It contradicts his speed rating because he was either unable to avoid the lightning or there's some reason to assume he let it hit him.

And the fight takes place later in Volume 5, and there's nothing to suggest the crew suddenly got OOMs faster since that point in V5.

I didn't say you were saying it directly. I said that, for what you're saying to work, we'd need to assume these things, otherwise the aforementioned issues still hold true. If you don't think that we need to assume these things, just explain why instead of accusing me of stawmanning you when I was only going over basic issues with your argument. I'll spell out the logic here:

  • Yang and Weiss can see in front of themselves.
  • Yang and Weiss, if they were able to react to lightning, would have been able to notice the lightning coming down in front of them.
  • We see the lightning trigger a fight-or-flight reaction in them, so if they saw the lightning coming down in front of them they would have jumped back instinctively as they saw it - jumping back before the lightning hits the ground.
  • They do not react or jump back, however until the bolt hits the ground.
  • Yang and Weiss could not react to lightning.
For your argument to work, and for Yang and Weiss to still be lightning-timers, you would need to remove the first point. This is what I mean.

Okay, good that we've reached a consensus with him blocking. And of course we can assume - we make the less ridiculous assumption that the bolt hit Mercury first. Either way if he had the speed rating you're telling me, he would have had zero issues reacting to it far earlier and moving out of the way, which he doesn't.

Community_Gamer said:
So how does that all in line with this?
Click to expand...

Lines up just perfectly. There isn't "less" or "significantly less" stuff it has that lightning doesn't, if you want to be pedantic about it.

Community_Gamer said:
As I can tell, the Sea Feilong would meet these necessary requirements.
Click to expand...
It doesn't. It's perfectly spelled out in our standards that it should not act significantly different than lightning. The lightning the Feilong puts out acts significantly different than real lightning, a number of experienced staff and calc members have said it doesn't meet our standards, it doesn't meet the standards.

Community_Gamer said:
So can you please explain to me what VSB considers to be "significantly less"? If you don't know then just say that.
Click to expand...

I already explained what the rule means in practice.

"If the electricity doesn't look or act like real electricity it isn't given the speed of cloud-to-ground lightning." If I need to weigh in even more calc members to spell this out for you, I'll go ahead and do that.
 
Last edited:
>Yang and Weiss, if they were able to react to lightning, would have been able to notice the lightning coming down in front of them.
  • We see the lightning trigger a fight-or-flight reaction in them, so if they saw the lightning coming down in front of them they would have jumped back instinctively as they saw it - jumping back before the lightning hits the ground.
  • They do not react or jump back, however until the bolt hits the ground.


Okay but they werent looking at the sky and they stopped when the lightning hit the ground so they obviously noticed it
 
Also the weiss/yang lightning thing is prior to the end of volume 5, so it really wouldnt count ad an anti-feat as at the time they wouldnt have scaled regsrdless
 
WeeklyBattles said:
>Yang and Weiss, if they were able to react to lightning, would have been able to notice the lightning coming down in front of them.
  • We see the lightning trigger a fight-or-flight reaction in them, so if they saw the lightning coming down in front of them they would have jumped back instinctively as they saw it - jumping back before the lightning hits the ground.
  • They do not react or jump back, however until the bolt hits the ground.


Okay but they werent looking at the sky and they stopped when the lightning hit the ground so they obviously noticed it
Click to expand...
That was me addressing the notion of anti feats. But my position is that they don't matter.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
@Community The Sea Feilong's electricity breath isnt lightning speed, it was frame calced to be hypersonic
Click to expand...
I never agreed to any frame calc. I know it has been called to be there before. Honestly, I probably ask for justification on the time frame if someone even brought that up. But we aren't really talking about that atm.
 
Community_Gamer said:
That was me addressing the notion of anti feats. But my position is that they don't matter.
Click to expand...
Anti-feats matter in establishing consistency. A rating isn't consistent if it's contradicted nearly as often as it's justified.

WeeklyBattles said:
Okay but they werent looking at the sky and they stopped when the lightning hit the ground so they obviously noticed it
Click to expand...

They were looking in front of themselves, and the lightning would have entered this field of view before it hit the ground.



On the matter of our lightning feats, me and other calc members do agree however that the wording on the page is far too lenient/vague and needs to be adjusted (likely with the whole "Same AP as lightning / is electricity = lightning speed" being removed since this isn't how electricity works).
 
Dargoo_Faust said:
It contradicts his speed rating because he was either unable to avoid the lightning or there's some reason to assume he let it hit him.

And the fight takes place later in Volume 5, and there's nothing to suggest the crew suddenly got OOMs faster since that point in V5.

I didn't say you were saying it directly. I said that, for what you're saying to work, we'd need to assume these things, otherwise the aforementioned issues still hold true. If you don't think that we need to assume these things, just explain why instead of accusing me of stawmanning you when I was only going over basic issues with your argument. I'll spell out the logic here:

  • Yang and Weiss can see in front of themselves.
  • Yang and Weiss, if they were able to react to lightning, would have been able to notice the lightning coming down in front of them.
  • We see the lightning trigger a fight-or-flight reaction in them, so if they saw the lightning coming down in front of them they would have jumped back instinctively as they saw it - jumping back before the lightning hits the ground.
  • They do not react or jump back, however until the bolt hits the ground.
  • Yang and Weiss could not react to lightning.
For your argument to work, and for Yang and Weiss to still be lightning-timers, you would need to remove the first point. This is what I mean.

Okay, good that we've reached a consensus with him blocking. And of course we can assume - we make the less ridiculous assumption that the bolt hit Mercury first. Either way if he had the speed rating you're telling me, he would have had zero issues reacting to it far earlier and moving out of the way, which he doesn't.



Lines up just perfectly. There isn't "less" or "significantly less" stuff it has that lightning doesn't, if you want to be pedantic about it.


It doesn't. It's perfectly spelled out in our standards that it should not act significantly different than lightning. The lightning the Feilong puts out acts significantly different than real lightning, a number of experienced staff and calc members have said it doesn't meet our standards, it doesn't meet the standards.



I already explained what the rule means in practice.

"If the electricity doesn't look or act like real electricity it isn't given the speed of cloud-to-ground lightning." If I need to weigh in even more calc members to spell this out for you, I'll go ahead and do that.
Click to expand...
As for you, I am sure you want to keep going on to ad nauseum so I'll this will be my last response to you on these points.

I'll ask you directly. Why would Mercury being hit by lightning mean he cannot dodge it? If your answer is along the lines of "he would've dodged if he could dodge it". You don't need to respond then.

I know takes place in V5. But I pretty sure those aren't the same keys for you. But I am not 100% because there is just some much....stuff with the profiles.

I never said you claimed that I was directly saying that. I was just saying, no you are wrong because that isn't relevant to my point. The question I'd ask here is the same with Mercury above. So if your response is similar you do not have to reply.

I don't see why you'd think it is pedantic when we discussing the terms and their definitions because they are the criteria by which we make decisions. If the Sea Feilong blast isn't considered less or significantly less than I don't see the problem.
So, if lacking an arc is significantly less then why isn't it on the page? Why aren't there any examples of what significant differences?

If many staff members said that they should probably clarify or modify the criteria on the page. And the reason why I wasn't interested in your practical example because I didn't think it was necessarily justified. It was also anecdotal in nature and I don't have much reason to lend you any credibility. Same with bringing up staff members, I would either have to know them or hear their stance. If you want to bring more staff members that is up to you.
 
Community_Gamer said:
As for you, I am sure you want to keep going on to ad nauseum so I'll this will be my last response to you on these points.

I'll ask you directly. Why would Mercury being hit by lightning mean he cannot dodge it? If your answer is along the lines of "he would've dodged if he could dodge it". You don't need to respond then.

I know takes place in V5. But I pretty sure those aren't the same keys for you. But I am not 100% because there is just some much....stuff with the profiles.

I never said you claimed that I was directly saying that. I was just saying, no you are wrong because that isn't relevant to my point. The question I'd ask here is the same with Mercury above. So if your response is similar you do not have to reply.

I don't see why you'd think it is pedantic when we discussing the terms and their definitions because they are the criteria by which we make decisions. If the Sea Feilong blast isn't considered less or significantly less than I don't see the problem.
So, if lacking an arc is significantly less then why isn't it on the page? Why aren't there any examples of what significant differences?

If many staff members said that they should probably clarify or modify the criteria on the page. And the reason why I wasn't interested in your practical example because I didn't think it was necessarily justified. It was also anecdotal in nature and I don't have much reason to lend you any credibility. Same with bringing up staff members, I would either have to know them or hear their stance. If you want to bring more staff members that is up to you.
Click to expand...

Requires more context. There are ways that Mercury can be hit with lightning and still be fast enough to dodge it, i.e. he couldn't have had the opportunity to react for reasons other than simply being too slow (such as being distracted). In the context we see Mercury get hit by the lightning, yes, it means that he failed to react to it. He was looking straight at Amber, would have been able to see the bolt coming at directly at him, and would have been able to avoid it with minimal movement. This is sort of like taking Mercury kicking Ruby while she activated her semblance, and saying that Mercury isn't actually faster than Ruby because Ruby not reacting to him isn't a sign that she couldn't have reacted to him. This line of logic interrupts extremely basic principles of speed scaling and feat judgement.

Okay, fair. I do think we might need to change how the keys are worded on the pages. I'm aware of the training they did in V5 however I'm iffy on this training making them OOMs faster. Either way I'll drop the Yang/Ruby point since it's going nowhere.

Responded above.

And I have explained how our calc members typically interpret that line. I do agree the wording on that entire section is terrible, though, and is too vague for discussions like this. There isn't specific examples because listing out every physical property of lightning would make the page an incomprehensible mess and look more like a research paper on lightning; and there's actual research on lightning and electricity linked that you can read for the properties of lightning on there anyways. It's better to judge on an individual basis whether or not the lightning in the feat acts like normal lightning, and the page even references that there are properties of lightning that aren't discussed on it directly. Saying the page doesn't list out all the properties of lightning is kind of silly too, our wiki does not determine the properties of real life lightning, actual research does, and this research is readily available on there.

I'm talking with other calc members about removing the "same AP" criteria from the page entirely, and it seems there is a lot of consenting opinions to this. As the rules currently stand though - the Feilong lightning fails our standards.
 
Dargoo_Faust said:
Anti-feats matter in establishing consistency. A rating isn't consistent if it's contradicted nearly as often as it's justified.



They were looking in front of themselves, and the lightning would have entered this field of view before it hit the ground.



On the matter of our lightning feats, me and other calc members do agree however that the wording on the page is far too lenient/vague and needs to be adjusted (likely with the whole "Same AP as lightning / is electricity = lightning speed" being removed since this isn't how electricity works).
Click to expand...
Okay, look, pointing an "anti-feat" is the same thing as pointing out an "inconsistency". But you first have to set the consistency. By which saying there is a bunch of consistent bullet level scaling isn't enough. Then once that has been done you have to prove why that particular feat is contradictory towards that set consistency. But to say something is consistent is the same thing as saying it is not inconsistent.

If you decide to get into that, what's gonna happen is you'll point out a list of feats/scaling. Then I or someone will eventually point feats/scaling that suggests a higher tier. You or someone else will say its an inconsistency, we'll ask why, you'll either make a circular argument or not satisfy the question. But that's just my opinion so don't worry about it.
 
Community_Gamer said:
Okay, look, pointing an "anti-feat" is the same thing as pointing out an "inconsistency". But you first have to set the consistency. By which saying there is a bunch of consistent bullet level scaling isn't enough. Then once that has been done you have to prove why that particular feat is contradictory towards that set consistency. But to say something is consistent is the same thing as saying it is not inconsistent.

If you decide to get into that, what's gonna happen is you'll point out a list of feats/scaling. Then I or someone will eventually point feats/scaling that suggests a higher tier. You or someone else will say its an inconsistency, we'll ask why, you'll either make a circular argument or not satisfy the question. But that's just my opinion so don't worry about it.
Click to expand...
The anti-feat in question here makes Mercury's speed inconsistent on a one-to-one basis (he dodges lightning once, he fails to do so demonstrably another time) in the very fight it happens. Right off the bat there's a wrench in whatever argument for consistency proponents for the MHS ratings conjure up.

Also, the current bullet feats and bullet feat scaling is listed on the profiles, there is no need to re-explain this, and it's a waste of everyone's time to do so. Ball's in your court for lightning feats, actually, so you can get started on that now if you'd like.
 
Dargoo_Faust said:
Requires more context. There are ways that Mercury can be hit with lightning and still be fast enough to dodge it, i.e. he couldn't have had the opportunity to react for reasons other than simply being too slow (such as being distracted). In the context we see Mercury get hit by the lightning, yes, it means that he failed to react to it. He was looking straight at Amber, would have been able to see the bolt coming at directly at him, and would have been able to avoid it with minimal movement. This is sort of like taking Mercury kicking Ruby while she activated her semblance, and saying that Mercury isn't actually faster than Ruby because Ruby not reacting to him isn't a sign that she couldn't have reacted to him. This line of logic interrupts extremely basic principles of speed scaling and feat judgement.

Okay, fair. I do think we might need to change how the keys are worded on the pages. I'm aware of the training they did in V5 however I'm iffy on this training making them OOMs faster. Either way I'll drop the Yang/Ruby point since it's going nowhere.

Responded above.

And I have explained how our calc members typically interpret that line. I do agree the wording on that entire section is terrible, though, and is too vague for discussions like this. There isn't specific examples because listing out every physical property of lightning would make the page an incomprehensible mess and look more like a research paper on lightning; and there's actual research on lightning and electricity linked that you can read for the properties of lightning on there anyways. It's better to judge on an individual basis whether or not the lightning in the feat acts like normal lightning, and the page even references that there are properties of lightning that aren't discussed on it directly. Saying the page doesn't list out all the properties of lightning is kind of silly too, our wiki does not determine the properties of real life lightning, actual research does, and this research is readily available on there.

I'm talking with other calc members about removing the "same AP" criteria from the page entirely, and it seems there is a lot of consenting opinions to this. As the rules currently stand though - the Feilong lightning fails our standards.
Click to expand...
I am not blaming you for having bad pages on VSB, there are a lot. But I do think if the point of having these pages to help people understand what content revision and calc groups are looking for then there should probably be examples. And I never said it needed to list all....it has none. Other than that I think we are clear here.
 
Last edited:
Community_Gamer said:
I am not blaming for having bad pages on VSB, there are a lot. But I do think if the point of having these pages to help people understand what content revision and calc groups are looking for then there should probably be examples. And I never said it needed to list all....it has none. Other than that I think we are clear here.
Click to expand...
Hm. I actually don't disagree with this, and I'll mention it on the planned lightning revisions.
 
Dargoo_Faust said:
The anti-feat in question here makes Mercury's speed inconsistent on a one-to-one basis (he dodges lightning once, he fails to do so demonstrably another time) in the very fight it happens. Right off the bat there's a wrench in whatever argument for consistency proponents for the MHS ratings conjure up.

Also, the current bullet feats and bullet feat scaling is listed on the profiles, there is no need to re-explain this, and it's a waste of everyone's time to do so. Ball's in your court for lightning feats, actually, so you can get started on that now if you'd like.
Click to expand...
There isn't much point in me bringing up anything. Since I wasn't arguing for consistent lightning timers on here anyway. Just against the notion that was an inconsistency. It's already pretty fruitless to get shit approved anyway so, I was prodding at your position. It seems to get especially bad when there numerous preconceived notions about a series. like RWBY.

Anyway, if you are just gonna hang with the profiles that fine. It'd be a waste of my time to go through my issues with the profiles. And it'd probably take weeks to get them ironed out. I that covers everything.
 
Community_Gamer said:
There isn't much point in me bringing up anything. Since I wasn't arguing for consistent lightning timers on here anyway. Just against the notion that was an inconsistency. It's already pretty fruitless to get shit approved anyway so, I was prodding at your position. It seems to get especially bad when there numerous preconceived notions about a series. like RWBY.

Anyway, if you are just gonna hang with the profiles that fine. It'd be a waste of my time to go through my issues with the profiles. And it'd probably take weeks to get them ironed out. I that covers everything.
Click to expand...
Well alright. If it hasn't been clear I'm mostly just arguing my own opinion - which isn't the sole determiner of whether or not a CRT goes through. If anything I'd prefer if impartial regular users and staff commented on a given debate like the one we were having. Apologies if I came off as dismissive like that, wasn't the intention here.
 
Dargoo_Faust said:
Well alright. If it hasn't been clear I'm mostly just arguing my own opinion - which isn't the sole determiner of whether or not a CRT goes through. If anything I'd prefer if impartial regular users and staff commented on a given debate like the one we were having. Apologies if I came off as dismissive like that, wasn't the intention here.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't take anything personally. I mostly come to RWBY forum for a pass time. And scouting any particularly notable individuals.
 
Spinoirr said:
Ruby would scale because the Grimm lived getting hit by it and ruby helped kill it by cutting of it's tusk
Click to expand...
What's the scaling there? She broke off a weakened tusk. The tusk would scale higher than her beams. It needed continuous damage to allow her to break it. I don't see why Ruby would scale. And even so, the Mech feat is better. In fact it would probably upscale this feat. Lol
 
Spinoirr said:
Ruby would scale because the Grimm lived getting hit by it and ruby helped kill it by cutting of it's tusk
Click to expand...
Really quick though, I need to get someone on my side for updating the Verse page on Profile art as art for the keys. I got pngs for each key of RWBY, JNR, Oscar and Ozma, Salem, Neo, and Jinn. All from Einlee. Let me replace the old stuff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Anarchy2198
Ruby Rose vs Tracer
Replies
3
Views
394
Anarchy2198
Anarchy2198
DarkKingD10
[R1M2] FCOC Tier 5-C Tournament: Saturn Black vs Penny Polendina
Replies
22
Views
832
DMUA
DMUA
The Red Riding Hood fights a Zombie Singer(Ruby Rose{RWBY) vs Squigly(Skullgirls)
Replies
8
Views
633
MysticBrawler
Uzukeas
Hitoshi Kai vs Ruby Rose
Replies
32
Views
2K
Uzukeas
Uzukeas
Spinoirr
Spinoirr's High 6-A tournament: match one, round one; Ruby rose (Dragon Ball RWBY) (Spinoirr) vs Batman (Colonel Krukov)
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
Spinoirr
Spinoirr
Back
Top