Just because it changes standards doesn't mean it's something worth giving up.
I will mirror your answer. "Higher level values" do not mean "better values", just as "several calculations exceeding the narrative indicators" do not have more weight than the "narrative" itself.Let's not forget that we evaluate the characters of stories that are created by other people. What is demonstrated in history has much more value than what could be demonstrated in theory if the author knew the laws of physics. Calculations of jumps and penetration of materials are calculations of speed and AP, not LS. We have a lot of verses where the characters are level 9-B, but have a reaction close to light. According to your logic, we should count KE and LS from speed and take it for granted, although the character has never shown damage above 9-B and LS above Class 1. To overlook the context of the story is a very big mistake of this wiki
Could you please call Ugarik and Damage to speak specifically on the AP topic? I am interested to know their opinion on this matter.Clover seems to make good points here.
Something as core as AP vs. DC being severely upended just because "it doesn't look natural"? Yeah, no. Gonna need something way better than that
If you wanna say Grappler Baki then just say that. Again, inconsistencies with the verse are already handled by our current standards. Beyond that, this is really just coming down to your own personal opinion of what should and shouldn't be an outlier, and your personal opinion is not an argument
This sort of emotional appeal by going "I thought we're indexing how strong the characters are, not how strong we want them to be" is just completely meaningless. There's nothing "clever" about a KE calc or a cloud calc, it's just indexing a feat.
I never claimed one is better than the other, so don't put words in my mouth, thanks. My point is that they're both equally valid, depending on the work
This is just fundamentally misunderstanding my argument. If a verse has never shown feats above 9-B, then feats significantly above that level would be considered outliers unless there's a legitimate explanation. I never said we ignore the story, I said that authorial intent doesn't usually factor into our ratings since we can't assume it.
That is, having a series of poems based on emissions is better than improving the level system? Considering that you do not offer alternatives, this is exactly what it sounds like. Interesting opinion. I heard you.
Nah, this is just the most exaggerated example. I'll also include Kengan, Prototype, SDS, HNK and One Piece here.
It would not make sense if the values obtained through these calculations did not exceed many times the feats that are directly shown by the author
It’s very interesting that you decided to remember this after so many posts in order to strengthen your arguments with additional points
You just said that the "lower value = fair" statement is incorrect and are supporting LS feats through jumping and pressure when the characters haven't shown even remotely close to those values. Don't rush to thank me. Thank you.
However, if we have at the same time several feats of earthquakes and a feat of KE, then it does not matter that throughout history DP does not exceed level 9-B. Again, a very convenient position that has nothing to do with objectivity
I think I'd disagree, actually.
Your wording confuses me, like "poems" and "emissions," but from what I can gather... Yes, it is better to keep our current system, and trying this sort of appeal by saying "you'd rather not improve it" is - once more - completely meaningless
Again, this comes from a failure to distinguish Attack Potency from Destructive Capacity. We're not going to equate the two. You're just arbitrarily trying to limit certain kinds of calcs simply because "the results are too high compared to what I think they should be." That's not at all a good reason
This just makes no sense to me. KE feats, cloud feats, and earthquake feats are all "directly shown by the author," yet you're advocating to limit those simply because of the values they result in. This whole "directly shown by the author" thing just falls flat
I don't even know what kind of "gotcha" you're trying for here, but it's not working. I've been arguing for the sake of maintaining accuracy the whole time, even if you just don't think I am. I guess you're attempting to mock my view of accuracy, thinking that I believe accuracy means wanking every feat to the highest degree possible? What you're playing at here just doesn't work, and I'd advise you to actually argue instead of making these jabs.
Another attempt at a "gotcha" that doesn't work. I did say that "lower value = better" is not a good mentality, in the same way I'd also say "higher value = better" is a bad mentality. If it's accurate, I don't care if the value is low or high, whereas your argument is just that because it's high, it's bad.
Well yeah it depends on the verse. If it has several Tier 7 feats as well, then there's more of a discussion to be had. This is just turning into what you personally think a verse should be rated as, which is not at all an appropriate discussion when it comes to limiting or axing valid calculation methods.
Perhaps I worded it poorly, but I actually don't have any issue with us working on our standards for these types of feats, even if they seem mathematically sound to me. Hence the last part of the sentence. My biggest issue was with the rest of OP.
I think I'd like some more clarification on this point, since I'm definitely more open to legitimate reasons to question a certain kind of calc method's legitimacy. In practice, how would you resolve this sorta thing? What would be considered LS as opposed to SS? Since you could convert values of Joules into Newtons, as has been seen in many a calc before, like this calc for instance.
I believe that was specified here:
Damage and Bambu both agreed with this.
I personally just think striking leads to very inconsistent results, which is why I agreed earlier with the idea of a sustained lift being used. Slamming an object with a hammer won't necessarily correlate to what you can physically lift. If someone has something that works better than what is currently allowed, I'm fine with hearing it, I just think what's currently allowed sort of sucks.
I suppose after further consideration, I'm fine with either of these ideas (either being a sustained lift or occurring over several seconds) - not necessarily the world's biggest fan, but the reasoning's sound enough - especially given the whole baseball player real world example - to where I wouldn't be super opposed either.
Can you voice your opinion, please?
Forgive me. I use a translator and it gives such errors.A "poem" is a verse. "emissions" is an outlier.
We already have a number of users who agreed with the point about LS. We also have regular participants who supported my idea. I know that their vote is not taken into account, however, it shows that it is not as "meaningless" as you think
It doesn't work... Why? A large number of exploits still does not mean that it does not contradict the narrative. There are a lot of earthquake exploits in Kengan and the author even directly emphasizes this when the character scares everyone with his earthquake, just moving around and other people shout "Ahhh, earthquake?". However, the best exploits of the same character are jumping on the cliffs with a goat on his shoulders, breaking a wall and being pierced with a sword.
In fact, I couldn't even find in this thread where I wrote "it makes VSBW look like a joke,". Correct me if I'm wrong. You probably found this on my personal message wall, but this is not even my statement, but a statement of the opinion of the part of the computer to which I belong. Please note that I did not even try to use this as an argument, simply because it is ridiculous and completely shook my position and attempt to conduct the discussion objectively. I have never based my arguments and goals on the fact that someone believes something there. That's why I said that mentioning it is unnecessary and looks like an additional point of contestation that will make your answer more convincing to others.Yes, that's how it works. If you voice a few controversially neutral opinions, and a few obviously correct ones, then other arguments will have more confidence on the part of the reader. That's how the psyche works.
No, my argument is that higher values should be confirmed, demonstrated. I'm not against a 6-A earthquake if we see the destruction in different stages, but still spread across the continent. Or if at the same time we have a High 6-B level destruction, and this attack surpasses that. However, when the best DP is 6-C, and then we have one KE cloud and a 5-C earthquake, then of course I will be skeptical
I'm campaigning for the fact that we need a close DP feat to use all these skills. If we have a 7-B feat performed by a low or mid tier character, then it's not strange that earthquake and KE feats will give 7-A and High 7-A. But if top tier performs the 8-C feat, and mid tier and the rest of the characters performed the earthquake and KE feat without showing damage of the same level, then I consider this as an outlier
What do you think. Maybe it's better to allow only those feats that are directly related to large weights before LS than those that are related to the manifestation of power?
Can you tag Ugarik and Damage, please?What do you want us to do here in summary, Bambu?
A big example imo is spine and limb rpping feats. Where characters can be thousands of times stronger than the next feat because of peak joint strength.
I appreciate it, but it was Ugarik's idea initially and quite frankly, I believe he's more qualified to speak on the matter. He should be asked to give his opinion and assuming he gives a well-reasoned one, I think it should be prioritized over mine.I think that we should wait for Bambu first.
This isn't worded great but that's what you lot are here for, recommending words that are better than my words. I welcome adjustments.
This is an example I can agree with. Mortal Kombat characters can do this, but in verse, many of them lack feats of even lifting cars and such so it seems odd because they lack consistent feats but would be Class 100.
Again, this begs the question: What's the issue if this is a legitimate feat that requires a calculable force to be exerted? And this in particular is a pulling feat, making it strange to label this is out of the question. This feels strangely limiting
Received permission from Dereck03 to comment
I'm not saying the feat is invalid. I simply said it was odd that if a group of individuals all scale to a feat like this but the visual lifting feats are far lower, it would look odd. Never said it was out of the question. If it's a valid method, it's a valid method.
Oh, that's something I have no problem with. I guess my thing then is that it's odd to put this front and center here when we... already have standards in place for this sort of thing. Outliers, inconsistencies, all that
I probably didn't understand you correctly. Are you implying that the authors know how powerful the feat is because they could see the video on YouTube?
He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he's citing horror movies as another example of a certain kind of feat (in this case, ripping out someone's spine) that's much more impressive than at first glance - and that a YouTuber was the one who calculated this feat when these verses first showed up on the wiki. He's citing this as another example of us not giving much consideration to "authorial intent"
