-
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.
Saint Seiya revision
- Thread starter Kepekley23
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pegasus seiya saint seiya
- Status
- 130
- 120
Can we conclude this with a downgrade?
As I understand it, the "opposition" is just disagreeing almost without reason, making statements like "ALonik is not impartial" without presenting any argumentative basis.
As I understand it, the "opposition" is just disagreeing almost without reason, making statements like "ALonik is not impartial" without presenting any argumentative basis.
- 32,327
- 20,205
You are just insulting anyone who disagress. I advise you to stop.
- 63,487
- 8,486
Okay, that's enough out of both of you
Simply put we haven't got a full idea of where they scale, and we have one feat that needs to be recalced.
Get it done, and then we move on.
@Matt Speak for yourself. You were the one who directly called Alonik out. Now both of you cease
Simply put we haven't got a full idea of where they scale, and we have one feat that needs to be recalced.
Get it done, and then we move on.
@Matt Speak for yourself. You were the one who directly called Alonik out. Now both of you cease
- 130
- 120
I think you are not being impartial here, you are trying to deny a possibly downgrade just because you want to.Matthew Schroeder said:
- 4,018
- 3,695
@Antvasima
I have made a request of each memeber you proposed.
I have made a request of each memeber you proposed.
- 14,947
- 1,823
I think Alex is the best calcer on the site right now and is most unbiased.
- 14,947
- 1,823
I dont disagree I just believe that if you want the most unbiased calcer that Alex would be the best one to do it imo.
- 3,046
- 2,598
I don't think that the solution to this problem is another calculation.
To calculate a feat of destruction we need to know what has been destroyed and apply the amount necessary to destroy such a thing at a certain level. The size of what was destroyed can vary between different calculations since sometimes someone can measure a few pixels more or less, but in the end everything is in an similar order of magnitude.
If there is a disagreement in calculations from Tier 9 to Tier 7 or 6, then the point isn't the size of what was destroyed, and as we can see from the discussion the point has always been about the method of destruction.
On the one hand, there are those who say that the feat is only measurable as fragmentation, violent fragmentation and at most pulverization, with some atomic annihilation happening, but not measurable.
On the other hand, there are those who say that this is just the way the author draws these scenes and that the explanation within the franchise is worth more than the visuals of what happened. Therefore atomic annihilation must be used because it is the explanation used for everything within the franchise, from the most basic destruction to more complex hax.
It is a discussion that does not have much to do with calculation itself, after all, the size does not seem to be much disagreement and the point is more in what type of destruction should be used. Which is indifferent to calculation itself. I could calculate the destruction taking into account all the possibilities, but the decision of what will be used has to do with the discussion about what type of destruction should be taken into account, the calculations made so far do not seem to be wrong.
To calculate a feat of destruction we need to know what has been destroyed and apply the amount necessary to destroy such a thing at a certain level. The size of what was destroyed can vary between different calculations since sometimes someone can measure a few pixels more or less, but in the end everything is in an similar order of magnitude.
If there is a disagreement in calculations from Tier 9 to Tier 7 or 6, then the point isn't the size of what was destroyed, and as we can see from the discussion the point has always been about the method of destruction.
On the one hand, there are those who say that the feat is only measurable as fragmentation, violent fragmentation and at most pulverization, with some atomic annihilation happening, but not measurable.
On the other hand, there are those who say that this is just the way the author draws these scenes and that the explanation within the franchise is worth more than the visuals of what happened. Therefore atomic annihilation must be used because it is the explanation used for everything within the franchise, from the most basic destruction to more complex hax.
It is a discussion that does not have much to do with calculation itself, after all, the size does not seem to be much disagreement and the point is more in what type of destruction should be used. Which is indifferent to calculation itself. I could calculate the destruction taking into account all the possibilities, but the decision of what will be used has to do with the discussion about what type of destruction should be taken into account, the calculations made so far do not seem to be wrong.
- 63,487
- 8,486
@Ex Truth be told, should a calculation be made, we can simply settle matters once that is done as it will allow us to fully understand the scaling and we can edit accordingly.
- 5,418
- 1,768
I think V. Frag should be used, since we see small fragments in the crater.
Hasty12345
Username Only- 4,308
- 3,276
It hasn't been forgotten about.
More scaling methods have been pursued here:
This thread should probably be closed due to being continued in another thread.
Last edited:
Hasty12345
Username Only- 4,308
- 3,276
If by "relevant" you mean a continued discussion on alternate calculation methods for the infamous "island level" calculation as well as alternate scaling for early arc Saint Seiya, then yes.
I should also note, it's not 4 pages of hostility and accusations
- Status
