• 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 AKM sama if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.

Speed Standard Issues: Regarding The Flight Speed Standards

15,978
3,957
After taking a deeper look and thought into the newly recent standards added for flight speed, I found issues that I want to point out and discuss. And im putting this in the Q & A forum first as I want normal users to be able to weigh in on this too.

Obviously if things go..."sideways", then moving it to the staff forum for a more managed discussion is the better option. Now, lets get straight into this.

As was discussed in this thread sometime ago, and decided on, new rules for flight and travel speed was added in. Here is the new rule from the speed page.

Regarding Travel/Flight Feats and Reactions

If a character travels or flies very fast through a very empty terrain, in which it doesn't necessarily have to react to sudden obstacles, the speed in question is travel or flight speed, but not necessarily reaction speed. In order for it to also be reaction speed, and the speed in total hence applying to the character's combat speed, the character either must have demonstrated the ability to react to sudden obstacles while traveling at this speed, have a calculation made that supports the character having corresponding reaction speed/time or otherwise demonstrate having comparable reactions.

Simply being able to stop accurately at the target destination does typically not qualify, as it can be spotted from a large distance to make preparations to stop or the character could even slow down before reaching the destination, assuming we only know the average speed with which they moved.

The typical example of such cases of travel/flight speed that doesn't necessarily scale to reactions is space travel. As space is incredibly empty there are virtually no objects one has to navigate around between destinations. Just flying in a straight line from A to B would be safe. At the same time the typical destinations, such as stars and planets, are so large that they can easily be seen from millions of kilometers away. As a result a character would only need reactions equal to a miniscule fraction of their travel speed to perform a safe and precise landing on them.


After putting some thought and analysis into this, this new rule has multiple issues. I will start with one if, if not, the most important problem.

First Issue: Treatment of Maneuverability


The way we treat maneuverability and it's requirements right now are completely counter intitutive and, quite frankly, don't even allow us to use it as a method of scaling reactions to flight. At all. And here's why.

The problem with the standard as it is now is that the need for us to show or imply a character's maneuverability during space flight/travel, only to then have to calculate the reactions from said maneuverability, already makes it impossible for any actual scaling to the flight speed to be done. Why? Because the calculated reaction speed will always be much lower than the travel speed and sets up this wall to prevent scaling the 2 before anything is even done. No matter how good the maneuvering is actually done by the character. And at that point, it makes the purpose of having a rule for it extremely questionable.

For example to show this, there is this scenario that DMUA created to use in the thread where this discussion was held:

"For a clearer perspective, let's assume a highly unlikely scenario (credit for this goes to @DMUA):

A character is somehow blind enough to not notice a star system or planets from afar, and he ends up coming close to crashing into a planet, but by the time he's within the orbit of it's moon, he notices because it's an entire planet and turns to the side before he hits.

That's around 382,500,000 meters of leeway. Let's say he's flying 1,000,000 times the speed of light.

382,500,000 divided by 2.9979e+14 is a reaction time of 0.00000127589 seconds, Massively Hypersonic+ reaction time."


Notice what I bolded out here. The distance between the moon and Earth is roughly hundreds of thousands of kilometers apart from each other. And as the scenerio itself cites, these circumstances are something that are highly unlikely to happen, being over-generous to assume is the case for a certain character. Basically, a character even approaching a celestial object like this during flight over these distances is an extremely big rarity that doesn't happen common enough to have a rule for. However, this is not the most important aspect of this issue here.

Getting to the more important point, even if something like this does happen, because of the given distance being at play here when the character is maneuvering away, the reaction speed ends up ridiculously lower than the flight speed (in the case of DMUA's example, it becomes MHS+ reaction time compared to the MFTL+ flight) and thus becomes it's own thing entirely. It's not actually scaling to the flight speed, it's just being given it's own speed entirely without being relative to the travel speed.

So my issue is, why do we even have a rule for maneuverability and flight speeds needing specific evidence of scaling a character's reactions to their flight, when the very same rules at play here, that want the said reactions to be sticked with a calculation for them, completely makes that impossible?

To be more clear on why this is problematic, lets say we have a character who's flight speed is able to travel across the universe and they get a value of quadrillion times MFTL for their flight speed. I somehow need to have the character demonstrate their ability to react to obstacles while traveling at quadrillion times MFTL flight speeds, but then I need a calculation to prove their reactions are that fast? A calculation that then makes the reaction speed far far lower than the flight speed, even if going with a hugely unlikely interpretation of them being as close to the obstacles as they possibly can?

That doesn't make any sense and, the way im viewing this at least, makes this rule counter intuitive. If demonstrating maneuverability isn't enough and we need calcs for reactions, calcs that will make the reaction speeds lower than the flight speed no matter what is done, then what is the point in requiring maneuverability demonstrations in order to scale them? Or what is the point in needing a calc for them? The speeds will not be relative in pretty much any circumstance you can conjure up to your hearts content, making the idea that we can scale them just virtually non-existent. At that point, either we need to axe the need to calculate reactions and just prove/imply maneuvering is done while in flight, or we don't use maneuvering at all as a method of scaling reaction and flight speeds to each other.

Now im not done. Maneuvering is the bigger issue, but there are other problems I have with the new rules too.

Second Issue: Precise Safe Landing

So you all aren't confused, this issue is in reference to this part of the new speed rule:

Simply being able to stop accurately at the target destination does typically not qualify, as it can be spotted from a large distance to make preparations to stop or the character could even slow down before reaching the destination, assuming we only know the average speed with which they moved.

Now, lets dig into this.

First of all, this whole part here is being based off of assumptions that need to be proven first. "It can be"? Sure, but the question here is, is that actually being done? Is the character being proven to prepare to stop? Do we see them slowing down? These are all factors that are a burden of proof that need to be met. Claiming a character slows down before landing or seeing their desired landing spot from a distance and then preparing for it are claims that need to be proven. And if there's a flight speed feat done immediately and randomly with no demonstration of prep being done, the chances of them making preparations before stopping become very unlikely.

Second, this part of the speed rule, in regards to a character spotting their destination from a distance, doesn't account for other available factors that are just as likely and very much possible. How does this take into account scenarios where a character has a specific location on a celestial body they are aiming to land in? A town? City? Mountain? Or simply just a small area of land? It is one thing if they are flying through space and just see the planet itself from over a large distance. But if they are aiming to land in a specific area on the planet? They aren't going to be seeing that when so far away from the planet in space until entering it's atmosphere. Much like we wouldnt be seeing cities on Earth until we've actually entered the planet's atmosphere and close in on said cities. At that point, the notion that reactions only scale to a fraction of the flight speed are, at bare minimum, questionable. And that's assuming that any slowing down in speed is proven to be done for the character before landing.

It's also disregarding the factor that in order for a character flying into a destination to be able to land at precisely targeted points, they need to be able to think at comparable speeds to how fast they fly. You can't just stop or halt yourself at a specific desired point so fast, and so abruptly, without being able to think fast enough to halt your movement.

Now, on the note of seeing things from a large distance while in the middle of space-flight, this leads me to the last issue. A friend I spoke to about this to get his opinion gave me this interesting link that I'd like to point everyone reading this to.

Basically, traveling at even near light speed will not allow us to actually see anything during mid-flight, except for fuzzines from bright light. Otherwise called leftover cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang. And this is just for near light speed travel. Which must make one imagine going AT light speeds, or the ridiculous degrees of MFTL+ that a large number of characters on this site are accepted as moving at. To even be capable of seeing anything from any given distance during travel, much less be capable of dodging something during travel, would have to make ones perceptions and reactions extremely impressive to scale here.

TL;DR

-Much of this speed rule is counter intuitive and defeats the purpose when accounting for maneuverability and reactions; needing to prove maneuverability somehow, and then need to calculate the reactions, that will then always be lower than the flight speed, makes scaling the 2 to each other impossible and we need to fix this. Either change how maneuverability is treated, or axe it as a method of scaling reactions to flight speed entirely.

-The speed rules are built on assumptions of a character doing x and y things that removes the needs for reactions, but haven't met the burden of proof of being done for the given characters in question. To claim a character prepares for landing, slows their descent for landing, whatever the given claim is, that has to be proven to be the case.

-The speed rules in regards to safe landing make no account for characters thinking at the speeds they are traveling at, or traveling to specific locations, making it different than just a case of "They see the planet they're going to in the distance, they'll make themselves ready to land", Specifically precise locations to land at makes that a different case that should be analyzed differently from seeing a big and much more easily noticeable celestial object.

-According to an article given to me, one moving at even near light speed would not even be able to see anything in a given distance, much less FTL or the crazy degrees of MFTL this site gives out; seeing anything out in the distance or dodging in and of themselves should already count as great reaction and perception feats based off this idea of what can be seen during space flight.

And that should do it for now, unless others want to weigh in their own issues with the standard too if any exists. Otherwise, here we are.
 
Last edited:

DontTalkDT

A Fossil at This Point
VS Battles
Consultant
Sysop
5,381
3,282
1. There are scenario's where the gap isn't that large. Say, space flight interrupted by a sudden attack or the like. And, I mean, if not, so what? It still returns a result. The result being disappointingly low compared to the space flight speed is no issue of correctness.

2. Burden of proof is always on the one claiming the higher stats. I mean, you are basically arguing that, if someone drives his car 100km from A to B in 1 hour, they should be assumed to park at 100 km/h unless there is evidence otherwise. Not a good point.

And, c'mon, "everyone is just blind while flying cause of relativistic effects"? It's not even like reactions would help if we were to assume those things actually apply, as reactions don't cure you from lack of vision. They would be unable to see their destination regardless of how good their reaction is.
 
15,978
3,957
1. There are scenario's where the gap isn't that large. Say, space flight interrupted by a sudden attack or the like.
Thats not exactly an enticing point to use here as thats assuming the attack done to interrupt the flight isn't being made from a vast distance away from the moving ship. Do you mean the attacker physically going in to attack the space craft?

Because if launching an attack from a distance, that immediately puts attacking speed on the table and then becomes different circumstances.
And, I mean, if not, so what? It still returns a result. The result being disappointingly low compared to the space flight speed is no issue of correctness.

It most definitely is. You can't have us jumping around by first requiring there's reactions being done from maneuvering, and then also stick in the need to calculate it, as that automatically makes the reaction a lot worse and defeats the purpose in requiring us to demonstrating it. Setting it up to be worse before anything is even done.

2. Burden of proof is always on the one claiming the higher stats. I mean, you are basically arguing that, if someone drives his car 100km from A to B in 1 hour, they should be assumed to park at 100 km/h unless there is evidence otherwise. Not a good point.
Car crashing and abrupt parking is a thing too. Either way, this is not the point.

If there is demonstrably no showing of the character slowing down when descending on where they want to arrive at, then there's no reason to assume they did. The lack of descent being shown in and of itself fulfills the burden of proof that they arrived at full speed anyway, so it doesn't change my complaint here that much.
And, c'mon, do I really have to comment on the "everyone is just blind while flying cause of relativistic effects"? It's not even like reactions would help if we were to assume those things actually apply, as reactions don't cure you from lack of vision. They would be unable to see their destination regardless of how good their reaction is.
So then why are we literally assuming they'd see it from a distance in space when in the middle of flight?

And you missed the point of this. The speed of the flight itself is what makes everything around you in the middle of it fuzzy, so by being able to see things in the distance clearly, is a feat of perception for the flyer.
 
436
152
Agree with op.

-According to an article given to me, one moving at even near light speed would not even be able to see anything in a given distance, much less FTL or the crazy degrees of MFTL this site gives out; seeing anything out in the distance or dodging in and of themselves should already count as great reaction and perception feats based off this idea of what can be seen during space flight.
This might be a dumb question but.

wouldn't reactions similar to the same travel speed be required to move and manuever around ? i going with the premise that someone wouldn't be able to react to himself going at such speeds and not being able to react to anything around him.
Is like driving a car and going way to fast to the point you barely can see and react to stuff around you.
 

AKM sama

The Waifu Connoisseur
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
Human Resources
9,741
9,886
The problem with the standard as it is now is that the need for us to show or imply a character's maneuverability during space flight/travel, only to then have to calculate the reactions from said maneuverability, already makes it impossible for any actual scaling to the flight speed to be done. Why? Because the calculated reaction speed will always be much lower than the travel speed and sets up this wall to prevent scaling the 2 before anything is even done.
So my issue is, why do we even have a rule for maneuverability and flight speeds needing specific evidence of scaling a character's reactions to their flight, when the very same rules at play here, that want the said reactions to be sticked with a calculation for them, completely makes that impossible?
Normally, there is no need for reactions to ever scale to flight speed if you are flying across space. That is why we don't scale them. In certain specific scenarios that involve the character to react or avoid something at a very close range during the flight, due to whatever reasons, only then it would be a valid case for scaling that can be calculated if need be. I don't see any problem here.

These are all factors that are a burden of proof that need to be met. Claiming a character slows down before landing or seeing their desired landing spot from a distance and then preparing for it are claims that need to be proven.
You seem to have the opposite idea regarding burden of proof. These things are normal, and are assumed to be the case in any scenario until abnormal proof indicates otherwise. If you want to travel between cities, you'd drive your car at a speed of 100 mph. But when you reach your destination, you'll decelerate and then stop. Especially in scenarios where you can see your destination from hundreds of kilometers away, you have plenty of time to slow down and stop or to decide when to apply the brakes so as to not crash. Claiming otherwise goes against Occam's razor and would require strong evidence.

It's also disregarding the factor that in order for a character flying into a destination to be able to land at precisely targeted points, they need to be able to think at comparable speeds to how fast they fly. You can't just stop or halt yourself at a specific desired point so fast, and so abruptly, without being able to think fast enough to halt your movement.
Part of this is already connected to the above point. If there is no evidence that the character is flying at MFTL+ speeds even when entering the Earth's atmosphere, it is assumed that they are already moving at slower speeds because they are preparing to land. For example, you'll drive at 100 mph on a highway, but once you reach your destination (say, a shopping mall), you'll reduce your speed to 10 mph. But your actual destination is the parking space for which you need to search for. Obviously, you wouldn't search for your parking space driving your car at 100 mph.

Now, on the note of seeing things from a large distance while in the middle of space-flight, this leads me to the last issue. A friend I spoke to about this to get his opinion gave me this interesting link that I'd like to point everyone reading this to. Basically, traveling at even near light speed will not allow us to actually see anything during mid-flight, except for fuzzines from bright light.
This is a moot point. Travelling at light speed is theorized to do a lot of stuff in real life, like travelling in time, setting the atmosphere of the planet on fire, etc. Travelling beyond that speed is not even possible according to real life science. Yet, people do it all the time in fiction. They move at MFTL+ speeds without going back in time or accidently setting fire to everything on the planet or even destroying the planet. And fictional characters can also talk and hear at those speeds. Fiction doesn't adhere to this logic of "everyone is blind when flying at MFTL+ speeds".

I hope that sufficiently answers your questions.
 
Last edited:
10,764
5,014
Why have rules for scaling reaction speed to flight speed if reaction speed would be calculated to be far lower?

Because it's still partially scaling to that feat, it's useful to have standards for figuring out exactly how much it should scale. If we want accuracy, removing the rules that tell people to downscale and by how much is counterproductive.

What's the point of maneuverability demonstrations to scale them?


To show that there's anything there at all, and that they don't just have, say, normal human reactions.

You have the burden of proof to say that a character prepares to stop or slows down beforehand.


The person who has the burden of proof is the person making the positive claim. However, in this case, both camps can be interpreted as making positive claims, one is claiming that a certain method was used therefore they're slow, one is claiming that a certain method was used therefore they're fast. The only non-positive claim one could make here is that we don't know what they did, so their speed is Unknown. If you want that to be the default then be my guest, but there's no world where the default evidence-less claim would be "They did not prepare, and they did not slow down, therefore they are extremely fast."

If it's a flight speed done immediately, there's low chances of them making preparations before stopping.


As long as the flight time takes at least 0.2 seconds, they could prepare during that time with normal human reactions.

They won't see a specific area on a planet until they're within its atmosphere.


Buddy, if they can see the planet period with any interstellar travel (a requirement for traveling there), they'll have good enough eyesight to see areas on it long before they enter their atmosphere. You can say that fiction ignores that for traveling to a planet, but then I'd say fiction also ignores that for landing on a specific place on the planet.

You can't just stop or halt yourself at a specific desired point without being able to think at a speed comparable to your flight.


This is not correct. Human reaction time is in the 1/5th of a second range, but people can reliably hit 1/60th of a second intervals by watching for an earlier indicator, which they know (i.e. through muscle memory) comes, say, 1/5th of a second before the interval they're trying to hit. Fictional characters would need some superhuman level of precision for this sorta thing, but it's not really a reaction, as if the situation changes (i.e. the indication doesn't apply) they'll mess it up and be unable to correct.

Traveling at even near light speed will not allow us to actually see anything... Therefore being able to see anything would have to make one's perceptions and reactions extremely impressive to scale.


That is a horrid misreading of the article. It wouldn't let us see anything because the wavelengths of light would be compressed to the point where our eyes can't pick them up. That has nothing to do with reaction speed. All that'd do is give near-lightspeed and FTL characters (all of them, not just space-traveling ones) enhanced senses for being able to see shorter wavelengths of light.

I didn't read your tl;dr since I'm assuming you didn't bring up new points there.

But in short, I disagree.
 
4,032
1,510
Quick question: Why do we assume that character's flights have to accel/decel like a machine? That just seems weird, and I genuinely can't think of a character that has to accelerate while flying by themselves, most characters have a lot of control over their flight speeds (for example, DB characters and Superman typically seem to be able to go from 0-100 instantly).
 
15,978
3,957
Normally, there is no need for reactions to ever scale to flight speed if you are flying across space. That is why we don't scale them. In certain specific scenarios that involve the character to react or avoid something at a very close range during the flight, due to whatever reasons, only then it would be a valid case for scaling that can be calculated if need be. I don't see any problem here.
You didn’t answer the question here AKM.

My question is why is it that a calc needed for reactions after showing or implying maneuvering at all when making a said calc for said reactions will 100% make the reactions far far worse than the flight speed?

That is counter intuitive to the whole point in the first place.
You seem to have the opposite idea regarding burden of proof. These things are normal, and are assumed to be the case in any scenario until abnormal proof indicates otherwise. If you want to travel between cities, you'd drive your car at a speed of 100 mph. But when you reach your destination, you'll decelerate and then stop. Especially in scenarios where you can see your destination from hundreds of kilometers away, you have plenty of time to slow down and stop or to decide when to apply the brakes so as to not crash. Claiming otherwise goes against Occam's razor and would require strong evidence.
Driving a vehicle and flying to where you are going are completely 2 different things. The character is not a machine.

But whatever. Your missing the point. Can be doesn’t mean they will. That was my point. To claim they would slow down is a claim you need to prove as that would be something we would be seeing them do. Same with prepping a landing to where they are going. Your making the claim the character is doing those things. So you need to be one to provide evidence for that.

And even then, if the character is proven to not be doing those things, that should then make their case seperate from what the rule talks about.
Part of this is already connected to the above point. If there is no evidence that the character is flying at MFTL+ speeds even when entering the Earth's atmosphere, it is assumed that they are already moving at slower speeds because they are preparing to land. For example, you'll drive at 100 mph on a highway, but once you reach your destination (say, a shopping mall), you'll reduce your speed to 10 mph. But your actual destination is the parking space for which you need to search for. Obviously, you wouldn't search for your parking space driving your car at 100 mph.
Okay and if they aren’t slowing down at all? Or proven to not be slowing down? Implied to not slow down?

And again, that example is not at all enticing about what we are taking about here. We aren’t talking about driving a vehicle at speeds where we can 100% perceive all that we are seeing around and ahead of us.

We’re talking about traveling where even traveling at near light speed, logistically, makes it harder to do that. Especially when moving at higher degrees of FTL depending on how high.
This is a moot point. Travelling at light speed is theorized to do a lot of stuff in real life, like travelling in time, setting the atmosphere of the planet on fire, etc. Travelling beyond that speed is not even possible according to real life science. Yet, people do it all the time in fiction. They move at MFTL+ speeds without going back in time or accidently setting fire to everything on the planet or even destroying the planet. And fictional characters can also talk and hear at those speeds. Fiction doesn't adhere to this logic of "everyone is blind when flying at MFTL+ speeds".
This is a cop out since my point here had nothing to do with any of those things, but the simple and very easily understandable fact that the higher your speed is, the more that things around you will be harder to see or perceive (because of objects becoming flatter or more blurry). That is much different than any of the other random effects that light speed travel would cause and much more reasonable to assert is the case in fiction, more often than not.

Yes, the full effects of light speed are often put to the side because of fiction not following it to a T. Doesn’t mean that none of those effects wouldn’t come to apply either. And this isn’t counting the verses that do in fact make more use of physics than other verses. .
 
10,764
5,014
Quick question: Why do we assume that character's flights have to accel/decel like a machine? That just seems weird, and I genuinely can't think of a character that has to accelerate while flying by themselves, most characters have a lot of control over their flight speeds (for example, DB characters and Superman typically seem to be able to go from 0-100 instantly).

Because a character who doesn't accelerate/decelerate is always moving at the same speed. Every single character that flies, and isn't flying at that same exact speed for their entire lives, accelerates/decelerates at some point.

If we were to take them as literally going from 0-100 instantly that would require infinite acceleration, which is pretty wack. It seems more reasonable to say that they accelerate from 0-100 in a timeframe too small for us to perceive.

Also, whether they take 10 years or 10 planck seconds to accelerate/decelerate doesn't change how these standards would be applied.
 

Armorchompy

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
Calculation Group
7,632
2,880
this issue has already been debated enough in another thread, and i obviously still agree with akm
 
15,978
3,957
Why have rules for scaling reaction speed to flight speed if reaction speed would be calculated to be far lower?

Because it's still partially scaling to that feat, it's useful to have standards for figuring out exactly how much it should scale. If we want accuracy, removing the rules that tell people to downscale and by how much is counterproductive.
No it isn’t. Downscaling the reaction speed would, at bare minimum, just be making it roughly comparable to the actual travel speed but to a lower extent. But it would still be making it the same speed tier.

This here is not downscaling. Calculating it is finding its own entirely separated speed value, which will always be much inferior to the flight speed with this method. Even with lubriciously high assumptions that use short distances or high speeds.

That is my point here. There is no actual downscaling, it’s using a separate method and just calling it that.

Which is why this needs to be changed to a different method or just outright removed.
What's the point of maneuverability demonstrations to scale them?

To show that there's anything there at all, and that they don't just have, say, normal human reactions.
Don’t cut my complaint short like this is all I said Agnaa. That is misleading.

I asked what’s the point in showing maneuvering to pride reactions scale to flight when we are then forced to calculate the reactions in order for it to still scale, and then said calculations make the reactions not scale?
You have the burden of proof to say that a character prepares to stop or slows down beforehand.

The person who has the burden of proof is the person making the positive claim. However, in this case, both camps can be interpreted as making positive claims, one is claiming that a certain method was used therefore they're slow, one is claiming that a certain method was used therefore they're fast. The only non-positive claim one could make here is that we don't know what they did, so their speed is Unknown. If you want that to be the default then be my guest, but there's no world where the default evidence-less claim would be "They did not prepare, and they did not slow down, therefore they are extremely fast."
I don’t know about them not slowing being the default, but preparation is most certainly something that can be shown to be happening before a flight ends, or in some cases, even begin.

That makes it something that a positive claim can apply to, as this is something the character would be actively doing, and I most certainly wouldnt claim a character will prepare for anything without the series showing or somehow implying that they
If it's a flight speed done immediately, there's low chances of them making preparations before stopping.

As long as the flight time takes at least 0.2 seconds, they could prepare during that time with normal human reactions.
See above. Could =/= did.

This is throwing specific assumptions out to undercut the feat without giving more to reasonably doubt it.
They won't see a specific area on a planet until they're within its atmosphere.

Buddy, if they can see the planet period with any interstellar travel (a requirement for traveling there), they'll have good enough eyesight to see areas on it long before they enter their atmosphere. You can say that fiction ignores that for traveling to a planet, but then I'd say fiction also ignores that for landing on a specific place on the planet.
Since when has this ever happened?

I can assure you that seeing a big gigantic colorful celestial object in space from a distance while in flight and seeing a tiny localized area of land anywhere on its surface while in flight are 2 woefully different things.

But if you have a case where this is happened, name one please.
You can't just stop or halt yourself at a specific desired point without being able to think at a speed comparable to your flight.

This is not correct. Human reaction time is in the 1/5th of a second range, but people can reliably hit 1/60th of a second intervals by watching for an earlier indicator, which they know (i.e. through muscle memory) comes, say, 1/5th of a second before the interval they're trying to hit. Fictional characters would need some superhuman level of precision for this sorta thing, but it's not really a reaction, as if the situation changes (i.e. the indication doesn't apply) they'll mess it up and be unable to correct.
You kind of just contradicted yourself here. For superhumans that generally have speeds far far superior to the realm of knowledge we have on human reaction time, most especially for the ones that can react to and travel at speeds that are impossible for us to measure, why would this apply?
Traveling at even near light speed will not allow us to actually see anything... Therefore being able to see anything would have to make one's perceptions and reactions extremely impressive to scale.

That is a horrid misreading of the article. It wouldn't let us see anything because the wavelengths of light would be compressed to the point where our eyes can't pick them up. That has nothing to do with reaction speed.
It would. Light needs to travel into our eyes in order for us to see and then process anything through said eyes. And this process of not seeing anything done at near light speeds is because of the sheer speed of the flight itself.

Which of course, is obvious on why that happens as that is how relativity works.
 
After finally getting a PhD from Harvard, I agree with the op (why do ops need to make me read so much now, I don’t wanna have to use my brain on the forums this much.)
 
10,764
5,014
No it isn’t. Downscaling the reaction speed would, at bare minimum, just be making it roughly comparable to the actual travel speed but to a lower extent. But it would still be making it the same speed tier.

Then we're just using the word "downscaling" to mean something different. Substitute all my usages of "downscaling" with "having a value lower than but derived from a feat".

That is my point here. There is no actual downscaling, it’s using a separate method and just calling it that.

Which is why this needs to be changed to a different method or just outright removed.


I don't know why the method not fitting your definition of downscaling means that this valid method of calculating reaction speed should be changed or removed.

I asked what’s the point in showing maneuvering to pride reactions scale to flight when we are then forced to calculate the reactions in order for it to still scale, and then said calculations make the reactions not scale?


Because we're talking about how to derive reaction speed from flight speed, and if you can show maneuvering, a calculation can be made from that to derive reaction speed from the flight speed.

See above. Could =/= did.

This is throwing specific assumptions out to undercut the feat without giving more to reasonably doubt it.


Like I said above, you're also throwing out specific assumptions of the feat (that they could have stopped because of their fast reactions) that don't correspond with the rest of the series (if they had other equal or superior reaction feats, you wouldn't need to scale). It's all could could could. The only answer with truly no burden of proof is putting such feats as Unknown reaction speed.

Since when has this ever happened?

I can assure you that seeing a big gigantic colorful celestial object in space from a distance while in flight and seeing a tiny localized area of land anywhere on its surface while in flight are 2 woefully different things.

But if you have a case where this is happened, name one please.


Since when has what happened? I specifically said that both of us were talking about shit that fiction ignored; my point being that that sorta cancels out. If they wouldn't be able to see a target land mass shortly before arriving, they wouldn't be able to see the planet itself when starting the trip. If we're willing to waive one of those because that's adding enhanced senses for something that no piece of fiction acknowledges, we should waive the other too.

And I can assure you that if you can see a planet from 5 or more light years away with the naked eye, you could absolutely see areas of land before being in the atmosphere. The further away the planet before you head towards it, the smaller the area on the planet's surface you'd be able to see before landing.

You kind of just contradicted yourself here. For superhumans that generally have speeds far far superior to the realm of knowledge we have on human reaction time, most especially for the ones that can react to and travel at speeds that are impossible for us to measure, why would this apply?


I have no reason to believe that someone who can react 100x faster than a human couldn't also apply predictive precision like a human can.

It would. Light needs to travel into our eyes in order for us to see and then process anything through said eyes. And this process of not seeing anything done at near light speeds is because of the sheer speed of the flight itself.

Which of course, is obvious on why that happens as that is how relativity works.


Again, that has nothing to do with reaction speed. The sheer speed of the flight changes the wavelengths of light relative to you, making them unable to be picked up by your eyes' light cones. You cannot just say "lol I process a million times faster" to get around your body not having an organ to detect that wavelength of light.

Light needing to travel into our eyes is absolutely not the issue with vision at near-light and FTL speeds. The light still reaches your eyes because you're traveling into the light. While this would technically reduce your field of view, and make you see nothing when looking behind your direction of movement at FTL speeds, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand of flying towards a stellar object and perceiving it.
 
15,978
3,957
Then we're just using the word "downscaling" to mean something different. Substitute all my usages of "downscaling" with "having a value lower than but derived from a feat".
Okay, then the page needs to be updated to say this then. Otherwise, it is purposely misleading and defeating the purpose of scaling the reactions when you aren't actually scaling it.
I don't know why the method not fitting your definition of downscaling means that this valid method of calculating reaction speed should be changed or removed.
Because the way the page puts it, again, it is misleading. And setting up the reaction speed to be far worse from the very beginning before anything is even done.

Why ask for proof of reactions being the same as MFTL+ flight speed, only to then have those reactions be, 9/10, not even LS? That doesn't make any sense.
Because we're talking about how to derive reaction speed from flight speed, and if you can show maneuvering, a calculation can be made from that to derive reaction speed from the flight speed.
Yes and the page needs to be updated to consolidate what this site means by this.

And if we want the reaction speed to be roughly comparable, or the same, as the travel speed? Not just "derived"? How are we supposed to do that then?
Like I said above, you're also throwing out specific assumptions of the feat (that they could have stopped because of their fast reactions) that don't correspond with the rest of the series (if they had other equal or superior reaction feats, you wouldn't need to scale). It's all could could could. The only answer with truly no burden of proof is putting such feats as Unknown reaction speed.
I am not throwing specific assumptions out though. That's the thing. When I would claim a character isn't slowing, it's because they are demonstrably not slowing down. When I would claim a character isn't preparing for their landing before or in the middle of their flight, it is because nothing demonstrates this is happening. I am not just throwing a bunch of what ifs out of nowhere, im going off of what's provided and using that. Im not going to claim something that isn't shown or implied.

The opposition, on the other hand, when throwing this alternative factors into the fray of tiering the feat, are not going off what's provided when suggesting them. Even when there's no preparation shown or implied, or even when slowing down during travel isn't shown or implied, they are still giving this what ifs in an effort of skepticism when there isn't any reason to. Naturally, this is a case by case thing depending on the flight feat in question, but when we do have a feat that doesn't give any reason to think this for them, we should not throw these factors in built from headcanon and not what the series gives.
Since when has this ever happened?

I can assure you that seeing a big gigantic colorful celestial object in space from a distance while in flight and seeing a tiny localized area of land anywhere on its surface while in flight are 2 woefully different things.

But if you have a case where this is happened, name one please.


Since when has what happened?
Since when has any space flyer or someone zooming across intergalactic distances to go to a planet, a star, whatever it is, been able to see a specific location on a celestial body from such a far distance away?

That is what I asked.
I specifically said that both of us were talking about shit that fiction ignored; my point being that that sorta cancels out. If they wouldn't be able to see a target land mass shortly before arriving, they wouldn't be able to see the planet itself when starting the trip. If we're willing to waive one of those because that's adding enhanced senses for something that no piece of fiction acknowledges, we should waive the other too.
And that is ridiculous since, again, seeing a celestial body from a distance during flight is woefully far easier than seeing whatever specific area on the celestial body you want to go to from that same distance.

Not that it really matters if preparation for landing or anything similar for the character isn't proven or implied to be happening, especially for non space-craft traveling space flyers.
And I can assure you that if you can see a planet from 5 or more light years away with the naked eye, you could absolutely see areas of land before being in the atmosphere. The further away the planet before you head towards it, the smaller the area on the planet's surface you'd be able to see before landing.
Based on what, exactly? Because, again, seeing a gigantic ass object your approaching from a distance is one thing. Seeing an immensely smaller location on it's surface is another.

And if your so adamant this is possible, then again, provide an example of when this has happened please.
You kind of just contradicted yourself here. For superhumans that generally have speeds far far superior to the realm of knowledge we have on human reaction time, most especially for the ones that can react to and travel at speeds that are impossible for us to measure, why would this apply?

I have no reason to believe that someone who can react 100x faster than a human couldn't also apply predictive precision like a human can.
Even for those that are non-human? Which is obviously a case for many, many fictions this site indexes?

And even then you missed the point. How do we know this predictive precision is applied to levels of perception and processing that would be far above what we're able to measure? At that, the thing that has no reason to be done is to believe they apply predictive precision exactly as we do.
Again, that has nothing to do with reaction speed. The sheer speed of the flight changes the wavelengths of light relative to you, making them unable to be picked up by your eyes' light cones. You cannot just say "lol I process a million times faster" to get around your body not having an organ to detect that wavelength of light.
Yes, because we humans can't absolutely process anything during the sheer speed of near-light speed travel, let alone travel done AT light speed. That is the point. We can't detect anything or perceive anything at such high speeds, so our eyes wouldn't be able to pick up the altered wavelengths of light from the sheer travel.

What makes us able to be able to say the same for characters who can process and perceive things at light speed? Or the crazy degrees of FTL?
 
7,062
4,392
I appreciate the last thread made by AKM because he proves it’s possible for even a human level person to navigate through space. However, I feel as if its premise destroyed flight speed. If a character flies a good distance with natural flight and has no anti feats, I don’t see why I have to prove anything. The feat happened, the character can move that fast, and there are no contradictions. This character should have his reflexes scale to his flight until proven otherwise.

AKM’s OP has our rules to shift the burden of proof, making it nearly impossible for a lot of characters with flight speed feats. However, we shouldn’t blindly take any flying feat at face value unless there’s context.

Flight speed = reactions
  • Character’s only good feats are flying feats with no contradictions.
  • Character uses their natural flight to travel from point A to B.
  • Character does complex maneuvers at said flight speed.
  • Character can fight at these speeds.

Flight speed ≠ reactions
  • Can’t reach said speeds in an atmosphere.
  • Requires special needs to move said at said speed.
  • Has plenty of anti feats or consistent reaction feats on a far lower level.

Those are some basics to understand my point.
 
10,556
2,363
I appreciate the last thread made by AKM because he proves it’s possible for even a human level person to navigate through space. However, I feel as if its premise destroyed flight speed. If a character flies a good distance with natural flight and has no anti feats, I don’t see why I have to prove anything. The feat happened, the character can move that fast, and there are no contradictions. This character should have his reflexes scale to his flight until proven otherwise.

AKM’s OP has our rules to shift the burden of proof, making it nearly impossible for a lot of characters with flight speed feats. However, we shouldn’t blindly take any flying feat at face value unless there’s context.


  • Character’s only good feats are flying feats with no contradictions.
  • Character uses their natural flight to travel from point A to B.
  • Character does complex maneuvers at said flight speed.
  • Character can fight at these speeds.


  • Can’t reach said speeds in an atmosphere.
  • Requires special needs to move said at said speed.
  • Has plenty of anti feats or consistent reaction feats on a far lower level.

Those are some basics to understand my point.
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense.
 
10,764
5,014
Okay, then the page needs to be updated to say this then. Otherwise, it is purposely misleading and defeating the purpose of scaling the reactions when you aren't actually scaling it.

I think it's already extremely clear, but whatever, change it to clarify this, sure.

And if we want the reaction speed to be roughly comparable, or the same, as the travel speed? Not just "derived"? How are we supposed to do that then?

By providing a feat that can be calculated to have the reaction speed be roughly comparable or the same. Such as if you find a panel showing that they didn't notice a planet until they were 1m away, and reacted fast enough to avoid it. A more realistic example could be another character teleporting just in front of the flying character, and the flying character avoiding them.

I am not throwing specific assumptions out though. That's the thing. When I would claim a character isn't slowing, it's because they are demonstrably not slowing down. When I would claim a character isn't preparing for their landing before or in the middle of their flight, it is because nothing demonstrates this is happening. I am not just throwing a bunch of what ifs out of nowhere, im going off of what's provided and using that. Im not going to claim something that isn't shown or implied.

It also isn't shown or implied that they have high reaction speeds, otherwise this argument wouldn't need to happen. If you are truly not throwing out specific assumptions, you would ask them to be rated at Unknown. There's no preparation shown, but there's also no MFTL+ reactions shown.

Since when has any space flyer or someone zooming across intergalactic distances to go to a planet, a star, whatever it is, been able to see a specific location on a celestial body from such a far distance away?

That is what I asked.


None of my verses (or at least, the parts of them I pay attention to) have cosmic-level feats. I just don't read/watch fiction like that, so I can't answer this. Or in other words, I couldn't tell you any space flyers in the first place.

And that is ridiculous since, again, seeing a celestial body from a distance during flight is woefully far easier than seeing whatever specific area on the celestial body you want to go to from that same distance.

Now you're changing your argument. First it was "They can't see a specific area on the celestial body until they're in that body's atmosphere", and now it's "They can't see a specific area on the celestial body before they start that flight." If you'll notice, I never argued that they could see a specific area before they start the flight, I argued they'd see it mid-flight but long before they're in its atmosphere.

Based on what, exactly? Because, again, seeing a gigantic ass object your approaching from a distance is one thing. Seeing an immensely smaller location on it's surface is another.

Based on how vision works in real life. If you can see an object from far away, when it's 2^16 times closer, you can see things on it 2^16 times smaller than what you could see before. Given how tiny planets in other solar systems are from Earth, and given how large planets are from even as far away as a moon's orbit, if you can see the planet in the sky to aim at it and fly there, you could absolutely see tiny areas on it from ages away.

Even for those that are non-human? Which is obviously a case for many, many fictions this site indexes?

I don't think it's a trait specific to humans, I'd expect other animals can do it too. If we have no reason to believe aliens are incapable of precision, I don't know why we'd dismiss it as a possibility.

Yes, because we humans can't absolutely process anything during the sheer speed of near-light speed travel, let alone travel done AT light speed. That is the point. We can't detect anything or perceive anything at such high speeds, so our eyes wouldn't be able to pick up the altered wavelengths of light from the sheer travel.

This is not what the article you linked says. It's not about the processing speed of humans, it's about us lacking organs to detect the light. It's not a lack of speed, it's a lack of a biological feature to detect it. If light magically wasn't affected by the doppler effect, we would be able to perceive and process it when travelling at and above the speed of light.

I appreciate the last thread made by AKM because he proves it’s possible for even a human level person to navigate through space. However, I feel as if its premise destroyed flight speed. If a character flies a good distance with natural flight and has no anti feats, I don’t see why I have to prove anything. The feat happened, the character can move that fast, and there are no contradictions. This character should have his reflexes scale to his flight until proven otherwise.

Because they're different things. You have proven that they can fly quickly, you haven't proven that they can react at that speed. I am wholly against scaling different speed values for no reason, and I think it's something people on the wiki have messed up a lot. Proving that a character can move quickly in combat doesn't prove that they can move that quickly when traveling for 100 miles. Proving that a character can dodge a bullet doesn't prove that they can fight at bullet-dodging speed.
 
2,730
475
Upon reading the thread I'm going to have to agree with AKM, Agnaa, and Zamasu here. Flight speed shouldn't directly scale to reaction without supporting feats, and lack of anti feats.

For hypothetical example: a character who can quickly fly between planets but is also getting struck by lightning in combat consistently shouldn't scale in reaction.

However, a character who can quickly fly between planets and dodge asteroids, or even battle on the way there while moving at the same speed should scale.
 
15,978
3,957
By providing a feat that can be calculated to have the reaction speed be roughly comparable or the same.
And once again, I think you are still missing the actual point behind the issue I’m giving here Agnaa. The reaction speed coming from a calculation will NEVER be anywhere near, let alone roughly the same, as the travel speed. Ever. No matter how good the manuevering from the character is or what the circumstances for the feat are at play.

That is the issue with needing it, because it defeats the purpose of being required in the first place. As the example itself from the original thread shows, even when a highly unlikely scenario happens to come into play for a verse, the reaction speed is no where remotely close to the same level as the travel speed. Even when under those highly unlikely circumstances.

The only remotely possible way to get any chance of making both flight and travel speed the same, under this method, is to get some insanely rare feat with some insanely specific circumstances at work to have any chance of getting the same reaction speed as the travel speed. Which is so unlikely, I have better chances of winning the lottery than that.

And even IF that can possibly happen, it is absolutely nowhere near common enough to have a universally applied rule for other series. This is a far too superly specific formation of circumstances to think this can happen enough to have a rule on.

Such as if you find a panel showing that they didn't notice a planet until they were 1m away, and reacted fast enough to avoid it.
See above. Again, far too superly specific to unfairly apply universally.
A more realistic example could be another character teleporting just in front of the flying character, and the flying character avoiding them.
Why would this be a scalable reaction feat? I’m not understanding on this point.
It also isn't shown or implied that they have high reaction speeds, otherwise this argument wouldn't need to happen. If you are truly not throwing out specific assumptions, you would ask them to be rated at Unknown. There's no preparation shown, but there's also no MFTL+ reactions shown.
Except by them safely landing at full / comparable speeds to their flight. Without either factor demonstrably happening. Which is reaction speed at that point.

You can’t have it both ways here Agnaa. If this rule is going to go out of its way in saying that “flight speed won’t scale the reaction speed to itself because the character could slow before decent or prepare for their landing before decent”

And the character is demonstrably not doing either one of those “could be factors” the rule bothers to mention

Then you cannot invent some loop hole with out of nowhere headcanon at the last minute to undercut the reaction speeds from scaling. Follow the rule and what happens when said rules factors don't happen. You might as well be saying reactions are banned from scaling to flight speed at all at that point without directly saying so. Which is precisely what this rule is borderline doing practically.

None of my verses (or at least, the parts of them I pay attention to) have cosmic-level feats. I just don't read/watch fiction like that, so I can't answer this.
Exactly. So kindly don't try and counter my point by saying it's "totally possible" without even having one single case of showing so. The lack of such cases rests my case on that, more than likely, it's never been done.
Now you're changing your argument. First it was "They can't see a specific area on the celestial body until they're in that body's atmosphere", and now it's "They can't see a specific area on the celestial body before they start that flight." If you'll notice, I never argued that they could see a specific area before they start the flight, I argued they'd see it mid-flight but long before they're in its atmosphere.
Now you're putting words in my mouth and twisting it. Never said anything about "before they start the flight"

I said during their flight.

Even in the very quote you took from me.
Based on how vision works in real life.
Kindly show me someone from outside our planet viewing a city or small area of land on our planet then.
If you can see an object from far away, when it's 2^16 times closer, you can see things on it 2^16 times smaller than what you could see before. Given how tiny planets in other solar systems are from Earth, and given how large planets are from even as far away as a moon's orbit, if you can see the planet in the sky to aim at it and fly there, you could absolutely see tiny areas on it from ages away.
Again, see above. Because as far as that example of seeing the earth from moon's orbit, nothing in that picture indicates you could see areas as small as a random rocky area to as large as New York City on the planet's surface. The only way to circumvent this would be to get very close to the celestial body of choice as you can to match your comment on one or the other getting closer to each other.

Not that this really matters much anyway without deceleration or preparation happening prior.
I don't think it's a trait specific to humans, I'd expect other animals can do it too. If we have no reason to believe aliens are incapable of precision, I don't know why we'd dismiss it as a possibility.
Incapable of precision wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about precision being exactly the same for characters that are otherwise superhumans or non-humans, that are beyond the realm of what we are capable of.

A MFTL+ superhuman, for instance, may very well have predictive precision apply not to the same extent as it is for normal humans. We perceive things at x time of a second? Someone with higher speeds than us may very well perceive things at a different time of a second, and so on and so forth from there. Our human level reaction timing and what we can perceive has precision apply to one extent. What says woefully faster people have that apply to them in exactly the same manner?
This is not what the article you linked says. It's not about the processing speed of humans, it's about us lacking organs to detect the light. It's not a lack of speed, it's a lack of a biological feature to detect it. If light magically wasn't affected by the doppler effect, we would be able to perceive and process it when travelling at and above the speed of light.

It really doesn't just have to do with lack of proper eyesight to see at the speed. You would still experience other things like length contraction near the speed of light too, among the Relativistc Effects. Also, I don't like how you are so casually saying light is "magically" affected by the Doppler effect. It's just a constant of our universe in relation to light. You still wouldn't view things normally because of your relative speed to everything else you're traveling passed. Length contraction being an example of that.

Because they're different things. You have proven that they can fly quickly, you haven't proven that they can react at that speed. I am wholly against scaling different speed values for no reason, and I think it's something people on the wiki have messed up a lot. Proving that a character can move quickly in combat doesn't prove that they can move that quickly when traveling for 100 miles. Proving that a character can dodge a bullet doesn't prove that they can fight at bullet-dodging speed.
So what if they're different? That's no excuse to dismiss the assumption thats naturally safe and reasonable to assert. Especially when this realm of incredulity begins to question how body movement can, for some magically out of nowhere reason, be disproportionally vast to begin with.
 

Seol404

Joke Battles Tiering System Scholar
Joke Battles
Sysop
5,881
835
And once again, I think you are still missing the actual point behind the issue I’m giving here Agnaa. The reaction speed coming from a calculation will NEVER be anywhere near, let alone roughly the same, as the travel speed. Ever. No matter how good the manuevering from the character is or what the circumstances for the feat are at play.

That is the issue with needing it, because it defeats the purpose of being required in the first place. As the example itself from the original thread shows, even when a highly unlikely scenario happens to come into play for a verse, the reaction speed is no where remotely close to the same level as the travel speed. Even when under those highly unlikely circumstances.

The only remotely possible way to get any chance of making both flight and travel speed the same, under this method, is to get some insanely rare feat with some insanely specific circumstances at work to have any chance of getting the same reaction speed as the travel speed. Which is so unlikely, I have better chances of winning the lottery than that.

And even IF that can possibly happen, it is absolutely nowhere near common enough to have a universally applied rule for other series. This is a far too superly specific formation of circumstances to think this can happen enough to have a rule on.
So it's really starting to sound as though your issue is just that you can't scale reaction speed to travel speed.

None of your arguments seem to be about how the method is faulty more so than they end up yielding slower speeds, which is a non-issue.
 
15,978
3,957
None of your arguments seem to be about how the method is faulty more so than they end up yielding slower speeds, which is a non-issue.
You mean a method forced onto us because we're going with superly specific and unfair circumstances, applying them universally, which pretty much disects any possible chance of reactions scaling to travel speed automatically and significantly, all because of incredulity and loop holes being exploited to stop the scaling?

Pretty sure all that I've said cites the method being faulty.
 
10,764
5,014
And once again, I think you are still missing the actual point behind the issue I’m giving here Agnaa. The reaction speed coming from a calculation will NEVER be anywhere near, let alone roughly the same, as the travel speed.

But it's accurate, so I don't see that as an issue.

Why would this be a scalable reaction feat? I’m not understanding on this point.

Because such a character would be flying at their full flight speed, and will suddenly have to react at that speed within a 1 meter distance, which is enough to fully scale. Reaction speed comes from maneuvering, so if you have to maneuver around something that suddenly pops 1 meter in front of you, that fully scales.

Except by them safely landing at full / comparable speeds to their flight. Without either factor demonstrably happening. Which is reaction speed at that point.

And the character is demonstrably not doing either one of those “could be factors” the rule bothers to mention


There is a difference between "A factor not demonstrably happening" and "A factor demonstrably not happening". In the former, there is no proof whether the factor existed or not. In the latter, there is proof that the factor doesn't exist. In the latter case, that's exactly the sorta thing you'd need to show for reactions to scale to flight speed. But most of your arguments in this thread and the previous thread have been trying to argue through the former, "We don't have proof that they did this, so we should instead say they did this other thing that gives a higher rating."

If you don't know, it's unknown. But if you know that they didn't, we can confidently say they didn't.

Exactly. So kindly don't try and counter my point by saying it's "totally possible" without even having one single case of showing so. The lack of such cases rests my case on that, more than likely, it's never been done.

It's possible going by the laws of physics in the real world, which are what we're trying to rate fiction by.

Now you're putting words in my mouth and twisting it. Never said anything about "before they start the flight"

I said during their flight.

Even in the very quote you took from me.


Shit my bad, I misread what you said, but other than that misquote I think most of what I said is still applicable:
And that is ridiculous since, again, seeing a celestial body from a distance during flight is woefully far easier than seeing whatever specific area on the celestial body you want to go to from that same distance.
You're saying here that characters can't see in greater detail at the same distance. No shit. But for a character to fly to a planet, they have to see/know where it is before they start flying, and for a character to land at a specific spot on a planet, they only need to find that location later on in the flight. There is a difference in the distances at play.

While you are correct that you can't see better by standing still, my point was that you could see better by getting closer.

Kindly show me someone from outside our planet viewing a city or small area of land on our planet then.

We don't have superhuman vision, and the feats I'm talking about require superhuman vision if we're not willing to dismiss them as plot-convenience.

Again, see above. Because as far as that example of seeing the earth from moon's orbit, nothing in that picture indicates you could see areas as small as a random rocky area to as large as New York City on the planet's surface. The only way to circumvent this would be to get very close to the celestial body of choice as you can to match your comment on one or the other getting closer to each other.

You're not even responding to my actual point about how getting closer lets you see things better. You just took one of my examples (planets in other solar systems are completely imperceptible to the human eye, but planets from a moon's orbit away are very clearly visible), ignored the first part of the example and the argument it took place in, and argued against it as if I said that ordinary humans could discern NYC from the moon.

Not that this really matters much anyway without deceleration or preparation happening prior.

No, this is relevant for determining how close they'd have to be to react, assuming no deceleration or preparation to stop.

Incapable of precision wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about precision being exactly the same for characters that are otherwise superhumans or non-humans, that are beyond the realm of what we are capable of.

A MFTL+ superhuman, for instance, may very well have predictive precision apply not to the same extent as it is for normal humans. We perceive things at x time of a second? Someone with higher speeds than us may very well perceive things at a different time of a second, and so on and so forth from there. Our human level reaction timing and what we can perceive has precision apply to one extent. What says woefully faster people have that apply to them in exactly the same manner?


It could be different. But again, our default in the absence of evidence is never going to be the highest possible interpretation, it'll either be the lowest interpretation that hasn't been ruled out, or Unknown.

It really doesn't just have to do with lack of proper eyesight to see at the speed. You would still experience other things like length contraction near the speed of light too, among the Relativistc Effects. Also, I don't like how you are so casually saying light is "magically" affected by the Doppler effect. It's just a constant of our universe in relation to light. You still wouldn't view things normally because of your relative speed to everything else you're traveling passed. Length contraction being an example of that.

Length contraction (aside from how it'd make light imperceptible to us) wouldn't prevent us from seeing stellar objects in any way that could be fixed by reacting faster. I agree that traveling at fast speeds makes perception weird, but it's not made weird in a way that you can resolve by processing it 10^8 times faster.

Also, I wasn't saying that light was magically affected by the Doppler effect. I was supposing a world where light magically wasn't affected by the Doppler effect, and then talking about what would happen in such a world.

So what if they're different? That's no excuse to dismiss the assumption thats naturally safe and reasonable to assert. Especially when this realm of incredulity begins to question how body movement can, for some magically out of nowhere reason, be disproportionally vast to begin with.

I don't find that assumption natural or safe, and if you're wanting to make all types of speed scale automatically to each other when they become too "disproportionate" you're gonna need to make another thread.

You mean a method forced onto us because we're going with superly specific and unfair circumstances, applying them universally, which pretty much disects any possible chance of reactions scaling to travel speed automatically and significantly, all because of incredulity and loop holes being exploited to stop the scaling?

superly specific

We have a lot of incredibly specific restrictions. Tiering System, Black Hole Feats in Fiction, Creation Feats. There is no issue with restrictions being specific.


I don't see how this is unfair.

applying them universally

We should apply standards universally, actually.

pretty much disects any possible chance of reactions scaling to travel speed automatically and significantly

Yeah, it shouldn't be automatic and significant, because that's what bears out when we think about it critically and apply knowledge from our reality.

all because of incredulity and loop holes being exploited

I don't understand how any of that is happening here.
 
Last edited:
1,549
1,044
I don’t really think this is that unfair or hard. At the very least if a creator sees Flight speed as = to Combat Speed they should like you know. Fight while flying a few times
 
15,978
3,957
But it's accurate, so I don't see that as an issue.
Because it's not an accurate method to go with as it makes scaling reactions to flight an impossibility. Going with methods like the ones Zamasu pointed out as alternatives are a much more practical and reasonable middle ground for something thats being applied to everything.

Because such a character would be flying at their full flight speed, and will suddenly have to react at that speed within a 1 meter distance, which is enough to fully scale. Reaction speed comes from maneuvering, so if you have to maneuver around something that suddenly pops 1 meter in front of you, that fully scales.
You do know teleportation isn't speed right?
There is a difference between "A factor not demonstrably happening" and "A factor demonstrably not happening". In the former, there is no proof whether the factor existed or not. In the latter, there is proof that the factor doesn't exist. In the latter case, that's exactly the sorta thing you'd need to show for reactions to scale to flight speed. But most of your arguments in this thread and the previous thread have been discussing the latter, "We don't have proof that they did this, so we shouldn't assume they did."

If you don't know, it's unknown. But if you know that they didn't, we can confidently say they didn't.
This is ridiculous. The factor existing in the first place is a burden of proof that must be met, not the other way around. As Zamasu put it, this is reversing the burden of proof here. Slowing down can't be argued to happen unless you see it first hand before you, and the same thing with preparation. So im failing to see any difference between these 2 cases that your so adamantly saying are different.

Not to mention, you sure as hell can't use a non-proof as a proof against something. No proof is no proof, using it to undercut a feat is just stonewalling at that point. If there's no proof the factor existed to begin with, then we assume it didn't and go from there. I shouldn't have to prove anything else at that point when the possibility someone brings up to conflict with rating the feat isn't even solidly an existing one to use in the first place.
It's possible going by the laws of physics in the real world, which are what we're trying to rate fiction by.
Okay and I would like evidence of our laws of physics doing this. Doing that would probably make me be more inclined to agree with you on this point.
Shit my bad, I misread what you said, but other than that misquote I think most of what I said is still applicable:


While you are correct that you can't see better by standing still, my point was that you could see better by getting closer.

Of course the character would be able to better likely see or just would see those locations the closer they get. I don't disagree there.

My point would be that would only be the case by them getting pretty darn close to the planet or celestial body they descending on.

We don't have superhuman vision, and the feats I'm talking about require superhuman vision if we're not willing to dismiss them as plot-convenience.
Yes, which is why this circles back to my saying of this needing very good reaction timing and perception to pull off. Especially when there's no deceleration or preparation at work during this.

You're not even responding to my actual point about how getting closer lets you see things better.
See above 2. As I said, I don't exactly disagree with seeing the smaller locations when getting closer to the celestial object.
No, this is relevant for determining how close they'd have to be to react, assuming no deceleration or preparation to stop.
Yes, thats what I said? I said seeing the locations the closer you get to the planet wouldn't matter that much when there's no deceleration or preparation to stop, since at that point, it becomes a reaction feat based on how close they are to the planet coming in.
It could be different. But again, our default in the absence of evidence is never going to be the highest possible interpretation, it'll either be the lowest interpretation that hasn't been ruled out, or Unknown.
And exactly what absence of evidence? The speed being woefully above the realm of how we measure reactions and perceptions for humans should already make the point pretty clear. Cause I can most certainly confidently say that in a case where human reaction time is blatantly not the case with anything superhuman or above, using the lowest interpretation objectively just doesn't work. And forcing it to apply is even more ridiculous than going with anything higher.

Using the highest interpretation for something isn't an issue when it makes sense to do so.
Length contraction (aside from how it'd make light imperceptible to us) wouldn't prevent us from seeing stellar objects in any way that could be fixed by reacting faster. I agree that traveling at fast speeds makes perception weird, but it's not made weird in a way that you can resolve by processing it 10^8 times faster.
I wasn't saying that you would need higher reactions to avoid it, but that it is a natural side effect of relativistic (and higher) travel. Not everything you experience near the speed of light is just because human eyesight sucks.

Length contraction in and of itself doesn't require higher reactions, but it's one of the many effects that would make it incredibly difficult to navigate through space if you couldn't properly perceive what's going on during travel.

If we, hypothetically speaking, had a human traveling alright at 0.9999c on spacecraft, they're going to have a much harder time comprehending what's happening verses someone who's mental process moves at that speed naturally. That's just common sense.
Also, I wasn't saying that light was magically affected by the Doppler effect. I was supposing a world where light magically wasn't affected by the Doppler effect, and then talking about what would happen in such a world.
So supposing a world where light, and other such things, aren't effected in relation to your speed against them. I can hardly picture a series that would operate under that.
I don't find that assumption natural or safe, and if you're wanting to make all types of speed scale automatically to each other when they become too "disproportionate" you're gonna need to make another thread.
"I don't find" is not an argument, but you're subjective view of the matter. And I don't see why I would since, like I said, a person's body is not disproportionally vast like that, and to assume so is pretty silly.
We have a lot of incredibly specific restrictions. Tiering System, Black Hole Feats in Fiction, Creation Feats. There is no issue with restrictions being specific.
False equivalence. Especially for the tiering system and creation feats, those are not generally common things like a case of flight and travel are, the latter's being among the most basic everyday forms of feats among vs debating as a hole.

Not to mention, those are not "incredibly specific restrictions". Asking me to prove a creation feat is done with energy and that its used in a good timeframe to scale to your power isn't insanely specific, and creationist-characters are not an everyday thing you see. Expecting a large magnitude of characters to travel in an incredibly unlikely way in order for reactions to scale, is insanely specific.

Being specific with restrictions is generally not an issue, but the extent of how specific you are with them is.
I don't see how this is unfair.
Simple. It raises the expectations bar to a considerably high point, to the point where it basically destroys flight speed as a whole (as Zamasu put it earlier).
We should apply standards universally, actually.
Yes, we should. But not ones far too superly specific under insanely specific conditions to where the expectation bar is risen significantly and practically nothing would be able to operate.
Yeah, it shouldn't be automatic and significant, because that's what bears out when we think about it critically and apply knowledge from our reality.
We shouldn't be so critical on it. Especially when the process has us insert unproven headcanon assumptions first to undercut it and reversing the burden of proof from where it should be placed at.
I don't understand how any of that is happening here.
Using a bunch of "could be's" as factors, that you haven't proven are the case to create such doubt in a feat, is using incredulity and placing it universally on everything.

As well as forcing us into using a method for reactions that will always make them inferior to travel speed being a loop hole to just stop the scaling entirely.
 
Last edited:

Seol404

Joke Battles Tiering System Scholar
Joke Battles
Sysop
5,881
835
You mean a method forced onto us because we're going with superly specific and unfair circumstances, applying them universally, which pretty much disects any possible chance of reactions scaling to travel speed automatically and significantly, all because of incredulity and loop holes being exploited to stop the scaling?

Pretty sure all that I've said cites the method being faulty.
Nothing you said here brings up any issues with how the method actually works, only that it becomes harder to scale reaction to flight speed, which should not be an issue.

Also we should apply rules universally. That's how presupposition works, i.e. everything works how it normally should unless we are given implicit proof of it working otherwise
 
15,978
3,957
Nothing you said here brings up any issues with how the method actually works, only that it becomes harder to scale reaction to flight speed, which should not be an issue.
Kindly please don't downplay what I said. Because I didn't say “just” harder. I said practically impossible under these specific circumstances.

And that most definitely is an issue. Our standards are supposed to work with having a middle ground, not some insanely high pedestal with numerous barriers to go through.

Also we should apply rules universally. That's how presupposition works, i.e. everything works how it normally should unless we are given implicit proof of it working otherwise
As I said before, yes standards can be applied universally

Super specifically formed circumstances, however, should not be. Especially when they involve reversing the burden of proof in the process.
 
10,764
5,014
Not responding to stuff I've already responded to half a dozen times. There's only so many times I can explain how burden of proof works for you to only reply "you're still reversing it tho" before I give up.

Because it's not an accurate method to go with as it makes scaling reactions to flight an impossibility. Going with methods like the ones Zamasu pointed out as alternatives are a much more practical and reasonable middle ground for something thats being applied to everything.


It making characters weaker does not make it inaccurate.

You do know teleportation isn't speed right?


You do know I was talking about the speed of the character who wasn't teleporting, right?

Okay and I would like evidence of our laws of physics doing this. Doing that would probably make me be more inclined to agree with you on this point.

My point would be that would only be the case by them getting pretty darn close to the planet or celestial body they descending on.


To try to break it down a different way.

If you can discern something imperceptible to the human eye, like a planet in another solar system.

That implies that you can discern things at distances which doing so would be impossible for a human.

Thus, if you were to then fly to that planet, you would be able to discern small locations on it well before a human could.

Yes, which is why this circles back to my saying of this needing very good reaction timing and perception to pull off. Especially when there's no deceleration or preparation at work during this.


It doesn't need that, I gave you other explanations of it, but you've said that there's no evidence for those. Well, there's no evidence for good reaction timing either.

Yes, thats what I said? I said seeing the locations the closer you get to the planet wouldn't matter that much when there's no deceleration or preparation to stop, since at that point, it becomes a reaction feat based on how close they are to the planet coming in.


You said the exact opposite of what you quoted. It matters vitally in those situations because it gives a reaction speed lower than you're giving credit for by trying to say they'd only be able to react to it once they're in the planet's atmosphere.

And exactly what absence of evidence? The speed being woefully above the realm of how we measure reactions and perceptions for humans should already make the point pretty clear. Cause I can most certainly confidently say that in a case where human reaction time is blatantly not the case with anything superhuman or above, using the lowest interpretation objectively just doesn't work. And forcing it to apply is even more ridiculous than going with anything higher.

Using the highest interpretation for something isn't an issue when it makes sense to do so.


Characters being strange in one way doesn't prove that they're strange in other ways. I don't know how using the lowest interpretation just doesn't work. Using the highest interpretation is fine when it makes sense to do so, but that would only be cases where the lower interpretations are ruled out (or when there's only one interpretation, making it both the lowest and highest).

I wasn't saying that you would need higher reactions to avoid it, but that it is a natural side effect of relativistic (and higher) travel. Not everything you experience near the speed of light is just because human eyesight sucks.

Length contraction in and of itself doesn't require higher reactions, but it's one of the many effects that would make it incredibly difficult to navigate through space if you couldn't properly perceive what's going on during travel.

If we, hypothetically speaking, had a human traveling alright at 0.9999c on spacecraft, they're going to have a much harder time comprehending what's happening verses someone who's mental process moves at that speed naturally. That's just common sense.


You said that you'd need higher reactions. If you didn't I wouldn't have argued this because vision getting weird at high speeds is something I know and agree with.
Traveling at even near light speed will not allow us to actually see anything... Therefore being able to see anything would have to make one's perceptions and reactions extremely impressive to scale.

"I don't find" is not an argument, but you're subjective view of the matter. And I don't see why I would since, like I said, a person's body is not disproportionally vast like that, and to assume so is pretty silly."


And "you finding" isn't an argument, but your subjective view of the matter. Whether something's "safe" or "natural" isn't very objective. If we only look at the human body then sure, but we can see some greater variation in the animal kingdom, and we can see some ludicrous level of variation if we go down to the cellular level, and looking at technology humanity creates and wields we see more variation in these. Fiction itself also includes different aspects of a person being far more disproportionate than they'd be in the real world (look at any glass cannon or stone wall), and I'm against equalizing those without evidence or a good reason rooted in physical laws to do such.

I think there's a difference between me saying "A person's body can do this, so there's a possibility of it being lower, so until that's ruled out we should put it lower or at Unknown" and you saying "A person's body can do this, so there's a possibility of it being higher, so we should default to rating them higher."

Being specific with restrictions is generally not an issue, but the extent of how specific you are with them is.


Well, I guess we just disagree on what makes a good rule then.

Simple. It raises the expectations bar to a considerably high point, to the point where it basically destroys flight speed as a whole (as Zamasu put it earlier).


Flight speed is still there as its own thing. It'll still be relevant in fights if a character can fly away from the battlefield. It destroys unjustified scaling, which I am 100% okay with.

Yes, we should. But not ones far too superly specific under insanely specific conditions to where the expectation bar is risen significantly and practically nothing would be able to operate.


The site can operate perfectly fine without MFTL+ flight speed always giving MFTL+ reactions. You're really exaggerating the horror and destruction wrought by downgrading a part of some characters' speed ratings.

And that most definitely is an issue. Our standards are supposed to work with having a middle ground, not some insanely high pedestal with numerous barriers to go through.


I think our standards should rate things accurately, rather than trying to be a middle ground between downplay and wank.
 
15,978
3,957
Not responding to stuff I've already responded to half a dozen times. There's only so many times I can explain how burden of proof works for you to only reply "you're still reversing it tho" before I give up.
I mean, it's not exactly my problem on whether or not you give up. Nor do I care if you do.

I simply don't agree with you on your take of Burden of Proof and am responding back against it. Whether you choose to try and push your stance at that point is on you.
It making characters weaker does not make it inaccurate.
The rule says it's done to scale them. The method does not scale them to each other, as it's borderline an impossibility to with this method. So yeah, id say it's an inaccurate take to have when putting everyone in the same boat.

If I want MHS+ reaction speed from scaling to MHS travel speed, Rel+ reaction speed from scaling from Rel+ travel speed, FTL reactions from FTL speed, and so on and so on, give a method that makes that reasonably possible. This does not.
You do know I was talking about the speed of the character who wasn't teleporting, right?
And that's relevant how? Teleportation itself isn't a quantifiable speed, so the reactions from the opponent character wouldn't be quantifiable either. You're basically saying reacting to non-speed....gives you a level of reaction speed.
To try to break it down a different way.

If you can discern something imperceptible to the human eye, like a planet in another solar system.

That implies that you can discern things at distances which doing so would be impossible for a human.

Thus, if you were to then fly to that planet, you would be able to discern small locations on it well before a human could.
Yes, by getting very close to the said planet your flying to. Not when your a far distance away from it in space.
It doesn't need that, I gave you other explanations of it, but you've said that there's no evidence for those. Well, there's no evidence for good reaction timing either.
Except from zooming in at the planet without decelerating or prepping for it and landing where you want. Can't say flight gives reaction when no proof of deceleration or prep, and then turn around and say there's no proof of good reaction after the fact.
You said the exact opposite of what you quoted. It matters vitally in those situations because it gives a reaction speed lower than you're giving credit for by trying to say they'd only be able to react to it once they're in the planet's atmosphere.
Saying it doesn't matter when there's no deceleration or prep =/= I said the opposite of what I first quoted. Unless im mixing up what you are trying to refer to on this point.

Characters being strange in one way doesn't prove that they're strange in other ways. I don't know how using the lowest interpretation just doesn't work. Using the highest interpretation is fine when it makes sense to do so, but that would only be cases where the lower interpretations are ruled out (or when there's only one interpretation, making it both the lowest and highest).
Which circles back to my point that the levels of speed being dealt with is, in and of itself, already a proof of being different from the lower interpretation. At bare minimum, It most certainly makes the notion that they're strange in other ways more likely and believable than otherwise, and lowers the chances for the lower interpretation being the case. You're welcome to try and say otherwise, but that would require evidence of your own to suggest that.

I don't understand this magical need of being so critical for higher interpretations. If it makes more sense than what the lowest interpretation has to offer, then so be it.
You said that you'd need higher reactions. If you didn't I wouldn't have argued this because vision getting weird at high speeds is something I know and agree with.
Maybe, but the general idea of this is that great perception of whats going on around you, during whatever high speed flight you are in the middle of, would be needed for this to process what the hell would be going on during said flight.
And "you finding" isn't an argument, but your subjective view of the matter. Whether something's "safe" or "natural" isn't very objective. If we only look at the human body then sure, but we can see some greater variation in the animal kingdom, and we can see some ludicrous level of variation if we go down to the cellular level, and looking at technology humanity creates and wields we see more variation in these. Fiction itself also includes different aspects of a person being far more disproportionate than they'd be in the real world (look at any glass cannon or stone wall), and I'm against equalizing those without evidence or a good reason rooted in physical laws to do such.
Well I did say a person's body doesn't make sense to be disproportionally vast, so im not sure why you pivoted to include the animal kingdom and such.

That being said, since you did take the time to comment on it,

All this paragraph you typed up results in is just one thing. Disportion amongst a character'a body is a huge case by case basis among many other things (Which is pretty obvious when fiction tends to give us characters anywhere from humans to humanoid figures to aliens, etc etc etc. that all quite obviously have different body types) and shouldn't be lumped together by the same merits.

Now, when it comes to that of non-human creatures (like say some superhuman animal or alien), I can agree with your idea that those being equalized shouldn't be assumed first. But humans and humanoid figures are a different story than the former. Hence the case by case basis comment.

I think there's a difference between me saying "A person's body can do this, so there's a possibility of it being lower, so until that's ruled out we should put it lower or at Unknown" and you saying "A person's body can do this, so there's a possibility of it being higher, so we should default to rating them higher."
Well fair, but I never necessarily meant "higher" but rather that their body should be capable of replicating a speed the said body travels at for not being so disproportionally different. But my larger answer of how this should be dealt with is just above, so I won't make another one for this point.

Well, I guess we just disagree on what makes a good rule then.
Guess so. Im simply not the type to be so overly critical on everything, and a good number of people on this site would feel the same way.
Flight speed is still there as its own thing. It'll still be relevant in fights if a character can fly away from the battlefield. It destroys unjustified scaling, which I am 100% okay with.
You know precisely what I meant here. Scaling travel/flight and reactions to each other as a whole gets destroyed by this, and the only remote chance of overturning that is having characters follow overly-expected circumstances to get both to be roughly the same.

Which i'm (and others) are vehemently against happening.
The site can operate perfectly fine without MFTL+ flight speed always giving MFTL+ reactions. You're really exaggerating the horror and destruction wrought by downgrading a part of some characters' speed ratings.
You are the one downplaying what im saying to suggest im exaggerating when im not, and it's quite obvious im not pushing for flight to "always" give comparable reactions.

What im against is flight almost never giving the same reactions because of these unique circumstances making that impossible from the start, and desire a middle ground that adheres to both ends.
I think our standards should rate things accurately, rather than trying to be a middle ground between downplay and wank.
Whether something is downplay or wank is not a reason behind how tight a standard should be. It's the problem of those initating the wank and downplay to happen by whatever loop holes or breakthroughs they try exploiting for their own purposes.

No rule should be too easy or too hard is what my point is. And if someone happens to wank or downplay because of the critical level the standard brings, then solve the issue surrounding the series at hand. Not find something you think is wanked/downplayed, strive to alter a standard to a point you think is accurate, and then effectively bring many other verses with different contexts and circumstances down the same habit hole in the process.
 

Seol404

Joke Battles Tiering System Scholar
Joke Battles
Sysop
5,881
835
Kindly please don't downplay what I said. Because I didn't say “just” harder. I said practically impossible under these specific circumstances.

And that most definitely is an issue. Our standards are supposed to work with having a middle ground, not some insanely high pedestal with numerous barriers to go through.
1. Why is that a bad thing, you have yet to explain why it is an issue that reaction speed can't scale to travel speed.

2. With the way it is setup now it works like it works in reality, we shouldn't just ignore surface area when doing calcs for durability just because the results may end up lower, why should we now just ignore everything else that factors into flight speed feats just because it might make some characters slower?
 
15,978
3,957
1. Why is that a bad thing, you have yet to explain why it is an issue that reaction speed can't scale to travel speed.
Well for one, the rule makes the effort in saying "reaction speed can still be scaled to travel speed, but by doing x things". Those said x things resulting in it not actually scaling, since no calculation in the world will ever allow both to be roughly the same or comparable (without some incredibly unlikely scenarios being included to give any chance of that). So why say they can still be scaled to each other, when they actually wouldn't be able to?

And two, im not even solely against the notion that it can't. I too feel AKM is on the mark with at least some of what he established with the rule, my issue is with the extreme caution applied into it.
2. With the way it is setup now it works like it works in reality, we shouldn't just ignore surface area when doing calcs for durability just because the results may end up lower, why should we now just ignore everything else that factors into flight speed feats just because it might make some characters slower?
Like I said above, im not 100% against the rule. I agree with at least some of it. My problem is that it delves too much into extreme caution, such as reversing burdens of proof and bringing up assumptious factors against flight speed, when dealing with scaling reactions.

For example, to try and see what I mean, lets look at safe landing and the assumptions the rule itself points out regarding it. The rule goes out of its way to mention safe landing from flight doesn't necessarily scale reactions because the flying character could prepare for landing before hand or slow their speed down before landing. 2 factors made to oppose the idea of scaling the speeds.

Now, notice the bolded word. Could. Are these factors fair to say reactions shouldn't scale? Yes. And IF they're the case, can they arguably not scale? Also yes. But here is the problem. What says either happened in the particular case? What says the character did slow? What says the character did prepare prior? Do we have any reason to first assume those would happen?

This is a burden of proof the rule reverses, and starts itself out with, in an attempt to be cautious against the scaling. Slowing down and prepping for landing can most certainly make reactions scaling an issue, but only under the circumstance that either actually happened with the traveling character. Why assume either are factors without a reason to?

And then on top of that, the rule doesn't make an attempt to make cases where slowing down or prepping aren't happening, separate from the standard. Or in other words, it doesn't attempt to say characters who don't slow down or prep for landing and just land at their average/full speeds can still scale their reactions.

If this example makes sense to you Seol.
 
10,764
5,014
The rule says it's done to scale them. The method does not scale them to each other, as it's borderline an impossibility to with this method. So yeah, id say it's an inaccurate take to have when putting everyone in the same boat.

Like I said earlier, I think it's reasonable to call such downscaling "scaling". If you want it to be reworded without changing anything about the implementation, I'm fine with that. It's not the method that's inaccurate; you just don't like that it's called "scaling".

And that's relevant how? Teleportation itself isn't a quantifiable speed, so the reactions from the opponent character wouldn't be quantifiable either. You're basically saying reacting to non-speed....gives you a level of reaction speed.

Flying at MFTL+ speed, having a character teleport 1m in front of you, and then dodging that character is reaction speed, actually. It's extremely easy to quantify too.

Reacting to an obstacle appearing is a level of reaction speed, yes, even if that object manifests through non-speed circumstances, such as teleportation or creation.

Yes, by getting very close to the said planet your flying to. Not when your a far distance away from it in space.

We just disagree on how far "very close" is, and I'm trying to demonstrate that it's probably reasonable from a moon's orbit away if one can perceive a planet from light years away.

Now that I think about it, it should be possible to calculate this. I'll put my cards on the table and say that whatever a calc-group approved calc for the following feat puts the detection for the following feat at (even if it's only at a distance of entering the atmosphere, so around 100km), I will accept that distance as valid for deriving reaction speed from:

The feat would be, for a character who can discern a planet in the nearest solar system (so 4.25 light years away) with their naked eye on Earth, how far away would they need to be to discern a city the size of NYC?

Are you willing to say you'd accept the calc'd distance from that for deriving reaction speed, even if it ends up being a distance as far away as the moon's orbit (405,696km)?

Except from zooming in at the planet without decelerating or prepping for it and landing where you want. Can't say flight gives reaction when no proof of deceleration or prep, and then turn around and say there's no proof of good reaction after the fact.

"We didn't see/hear them prepare" isn't proof that they didn't prepare. You'd need to actually prove that to rule it out. And if you can't rule it out, you shouldn't default to the high-balled interpretation that they didn't prepare and they have high reaction speed.

Saying it doesn't matter when there's no deceleration or prep =/= I said the opposite of what I first quoted. Unless im mixing up what you are trying to refer to on this point.

This is getting muddled at this point, so to restate my claim, I am saying that the distance they can see the planet from does matter when there's no deceleration or prep. If they don't notice it until they're close, they have less time to react (and thus a faster reaction speed) than if they noticed it earlier.

Which circles back to my point that the levels of speed being dealt with is, in and of itself, already a proof of being different from the lower interpretation. At bare minimum, It most certainly makes the notion that they're strange in other ways more likely and believable than otherwise, and lowers the chances for the lower interpretation being the case. You're welcome to try and say otherwise, but that would require evidence of your own to suggest that. I don't understand this magical need of being so critical for higher interpretations. If it makes more sense than what the lowest interpretation has to offer, then so be it.

We just have different axioms on this. I require full evidence for claims of characters being superhuman, and you're content with assuming that they're strange in other ways if they're strange in some ways. I don't think there's room for discussion on this, only vote-counting.

Maybe, but the general idea of this is that great perception of whats going on around you, during whatever high speed flight you are in the middle of, would be needed for this to process what the hell would be going on during said flight.

And as I said when the conversation first branched off into this chain, that equally discredits both of our arguments. "They can see it from 1000 light years away mid-flight" and "They can see it from 1 meter away mid-flight" are both debunked by the wavelengths becoming imperceptible to human eyes when traveling at those speeds. What you're saying there is true, but it doesn't discredit one of our arguments more than the other. All it does is indicate that characters relativistic and above should have enhanced senses, which is a topic for a different thread.

Now, when it comes to that of non-human creatures (like say some superhuman animal or alien), I can agree with your idea that those being equalized shouldn't be assumed first. But humans and humanoid figures are a different story than the former. Hence the case by case basis comment.

I'd still rather have something indicating full scaling. If this was a different situation I could imagine your reasoning here lowering the burden of proof slightly for cases similar to humanoids, but I don't think there's a way to only lower it slightly. I think our standards are already as loose as they can be while still requiring evidence of scaling, they could only really be dropped to requiring evidence of contradiction to remove it, which isn't fine by me.

Maybe humanoid characters who have very close reaction speeds to flight speeds (within 1000x or something) could scale? That's about as far as I'm willing to go, but may not even change how any characters are rated.

What im against is flight almost never giving the same reactions because of these unique circumstances making that impossible from the start, and desire a middle ground that adheres to both ends.

Well, like I just said, I think there's such a gap in evidence that there's not much more the requirements can be dropped without barely having requirements in the first place. If we go to the requirements Zamasu outlined, the three ways of discounting scaling are all nigh-impossible to demonstrate with how the site's standards work:
  • Can’t reach said speeds in an atmosphere.
    • We'd need an actual statement from a character saying "Boy, it sure sucks that I can't fly at fast speeds in the atmosphere" for this to apply. Nothing else will work. Seeing them visually move at slower speeds in an atmosphere won't count since we don't consider that counter-evidence.
  • Requires special needs to move said at said speed.
    • Again, you'd need an actual statement of "Damn, I wish it didn't take me 10 minutes to accelerate to my top flight speed" for this to apply.
  • Has plenty of anti feats or consistent reaction feats on a far lower level.
    • Yet again, it's extremely tough to find anti-feats that people would actually take as anti-feats. You run and fight on a planet without flying off? That's just them sticking to the planet and the creators slowing down the fight so we can see it. They get tagged by or barely avoid attacks such as bullets and lightning? Those attacks just scale. You'd need multiple feats that are unarguably lower (having stated timeframes and speeds) to be able to apply this.
I don't think you can make coherent standards that, say, cut out 20% of characters from having reaction speed scale while having 80% scale, at least with the way most people here interpret anti-feats and consistency. You'll either end up having 99% not scale, or have 99% scale. And to me, I'd prefer not scaling if there's a coherent real-world argument for it not scaling, and there's not sufficient evidence to overcome those real-world reasons.

And then on top of that, the rule doesn't make an attempt to make cases where slowing down or prepping aren't happening, separate from the standard. Or in other words, it doesn't attempt to say characters who don't slow down or prep for landing and just land at their average/full speeds can still scale their reactions.

I think the rule as written gets that across by saying those feats typically don't qualify because they could have done these things that would prevent scaling. If you want to add a line to the end like "If a character can be concretely demonstrated as having done neither of these things, a calculation can be made and to derive how quickly a character would have needed to react to stop accurately" I'd be fine with that.
 
Last edited:

Seol404

Joke Battles Tiering System Scholar
Joke Battles
Sysop
5,881
835
Well for one, the rule makes the effort in saying "reaction speed can still be scaled to travel speed, but by doing x things". Those said x things resulting in it not actually scaling, since no calculation in the world will ever allow both to be roughly the same or comparable (without some incredibly unlikely scenarios being included to give any chance of that). So why say they can still be scaled to each other, when they actually wouldn't be able to?

And two, im not even solely against the notion that it can't. I too feel AKM is on the mark with at least some of what he established with the rule, my issue is with the extreme caution applied into it.
So you keep repeating this point so I'm just going to keep asking

What is the issue with not being able to scale reaction speed to travel speed, and please do not go on a tangent about how it doesn't apply universally because our rules already allow exceptions where the series in question may make it clear that the characters can react at the same speed as their travel methods

Is the issue just that we still say they can scale or that you don't like that the default is no longer to assume they do because I'm really struggling to see what the actual issue you have with the system is.
 

AKM sama

The Waifu Connoisseur
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
Human Resources
9,741
9,886
Well for one, the rule makes the effort in saying "reaction speed can still be scaled to travel speed, but by doing x things". Those said x things resulting in it not actually scaling, since no calculation in the world will ever allow both to be roughly the same or comparable
It's not impossible. There could be a case where the character is flying at MFTL+ speed across galaxies, and suddenly he notices obstacles or attacks only when they came very close to hitting him and reacts to avoid them. Is this situation unlikely? Yes. Impossible? No.

my issue is with the extreme caution applied into it.
This is not an issue. It's following the correct practice as opposed to doing things incorrectly. It's common sense, not extreme caution. Doing the opposite would be extremely illogical.

What says either happened in the particular case? What says the character did slow? What says the character did prepare prior? Do we have any reason to first assume those would happen?
Asking the wrong questions. That's also how common sense works and things happen normally. The burden of proof falls upon the claim that goes against the Occam's razor to claim higher results. The questions you need to be asking are:
What says the character did not slow down? What says the character did not see the destination and thought about landing there? What says that the character was flying at MFTL+ speed until he was 1 cm above the ground and stopped under a picoseond without crashing in the ground? Do we have any reason to assume such insanely illogical things?

This is a burden of proof the rule reverses
You should be knowing how burden of proof works by this point. You've been here for quite a while. This was unexpected from you.

And then on top of that, the rule doesn't make an attempt to make cases where slowing down or prepping aren't happening, separate from the standard. Or in other words, it doesn't attempt to say characters who don't slow down or prep for landing and just land at their average/full speeds can still scale their reactions.
The rule only states why flight speed through space does NOT normally scale to any other form of speed. It does not say that such a scaling is impossible. It's quite clear in that it mentions that it could still scale in some scenarios relating to "sudden obstacles while traveling at this speed" which already implies that the character was not prepared, and did not slow down. A case like this would need to be proven, rather than just assumed.
 
15,978
3,957
Like I said earlier, I think it's reasonable to call such downscaling "scaling". If you want it to be reworded without changing anything about the implementation, I'm fine with that. It's not the method that's inaccurate; you just don't like that it's called "scaling".
Being mislead into thinking one will be comparably scaled to the other because of inaccurate wording is annoying yes, so yes id like this reworded to be more clear at the least.

Hell, im not even against calculating reactions all in its entirety. But I am against it being the sole only required way of "scaling" them.
Flying at MFTL+ speed, having a character teleport 1m in front of you, and then dodging that character is reaction speed, actually. It's extremely easy to quantify too.

Reacting to an obstacle appearing is a level of reaction speed, yes, even if that object manifests through non-speed circumstances, such as teleportation or creation.
Oh. I think I misinterpreted what you meant on this then. I thought you meant a character teleporting in front of another character, and the opposing character then reacts to the teleportation.

Not that they'd react to the teleportation while flying at X speeds.
We just disagree on how far "very close" is, and I'm trying to demonstrate that it's probably reasonable from a moon's orbit away if one can perceive a planet from light years away.

Now that I think about it, it should be possible to calculate this. I'll put my cards on the table and say that whatever a calc-group approved calc for the following feat puts the detection for the following feat at (even if it's only at a distance of entering the atmosphere, so around 100km), I will accept that distance as valid for deriving reaction speed from:

The feat would be, for a character who can discern a planet in the nearest solar system (so 4.25 light years away) with their naked eye on Earth, how far away would they need to be to discern a city the size of NYC?

Are you willing to say you'd accept the calc'd distance from that for deriving reaction speed, even if it ends up being a distance as far away as the moon's orbit (405,696km)?
Well when putting it like this, if it's possible to actually calculate, I guess that would be fine? But wouldn't this only apply if the character actually physically sees their desired celestial body from whatever distance away? Not just knowing where it generally is, but actually seeing the planet?
"We didn't see/hear them prepare" isn't proof that they didn't prepare. You'd need to actually prove that to rule it out. And if you can't rule it out, you shouldn't default to the high-balled interpretation that they didn't prepare and they have high reaction speed.
And again, I disagree with that, since this is still a shift of the burden of proof being done. Preparation and slowing down are both things that can absolutely be shown to be the case if that is the case or implied before or during the flight. What you are doing here is asking me to prove something wasn't done. Aka, you're asking me to prove a negative. Which isn't how the burden of proof works.

Why do I need to prove they didn't do something, when the assumption that they in fact did do something, is what's the positive claim?
This is getting muddled at this point, so to restate my claim, I am saying that the distance they can see the planet from does matter when there's no deceleration or prep. If they don't notice it until they're close, they have less time to react (and thus a faster reaction speed) than if they noticed it earlier.
I see. Then I'll rephrase and say this.

Suppose the character zooms in at average / full speed towards a planet, with no deceleration or prep. However, in this scenario, they notice the planet but still zoom in at average / full speeds for a successful abrupt landing. In other words, even if they notice the planet from x distance away, them still continuing to fly in at the same speed still gives them less reaction time to make the safe landing, and they still land successfully.

Would that not still give them less time to react, and thus, faster reaction speeds?
We just have different axioms on this. I require full evidence for claims of characters being superhuman, and you're content with assuming that they're strange in other ways if they're strange in some ways. I don't think there's room for discussion on this, only vote-counting.
Which means coming down to a popular vote and not proving what makes more reasonable sense to do. Different axioms? Sure. But your need to be spoon fed everything on every little detail is, no offense, a personal problem with how one views it.
And as I said when the conversation first branched off into this chain, that equally discredits both of our arguments. "They can see it from 1000 light years away mid-flight" and "They can see it from 1 meter away mid-flight" are both debunked by the wavelengths becoming imperceptible to human eyes when traveling at those speeds. What you're saying there is true, but it discredit one of our arguments more than the other. All it does is indicate that characters relativistic and above should have enhanced senses, which is a topic for a different thread.
Enhanced Sensing being a given may or may not be the case, but it doesn't debunk the needing of great perceptions at the end of the day. In other words, "should have this" =/= the only thing that would be granted.
I'd still rather have something indicating full scaling. If this was a different situation I could imagine your reasoning here lowering the burden of proof slightly for cases similar to humanoids, but I don't think there's a way to only lower it slightly. I think our standards are already as loose as they can be while still requiring evidence of scaling, they could only really be dropped to requiring evidence of contradiction to remove it, which isn't fine by me.
Something to indicate full scaling may be a recommendation to make, or some extra cautious thing you or someone else may want to do to be on the safe side, and thats entirely fine to do. But there's a difference between being extra cautious and getting more support for something, and getting something that is not needed. It may be better to have, but that doesn't mean it's required.

And it shouldn't be a requirement here since, like I said, unless the character is some being with a non-human and otherwise strange biology to have different disproportionally vast bodies, we have no reason to assume a human character or humanoid figure is disproportionally vast. Which is why it should be a case by case basis thing to go with since the kind of characters fiction gives us vary hugely in body type. It's not a universally treatable concept as characters differ from one another in this regard quite a lot.

Now if we were talking strictly about non-humans, like an alien, demon, etc., I'd be on your side to not first assume.
Maybe humanoid characters who have very close reaction speeds to flight speeds (within 1000x or something) could scale? That's about as far as I'm willing to go, but may not even change how any characters are rated.
Well like I said, if the character is human, a similar race to human or otherwise humanoid-like, there's really no reason to think they are disproportionally vast. So we shouldn't have an arbitrary speed cap of where they need to be to scale them.

Though if you want this for non-humans, that im open to do. But like I said, this would be included as more of a case by case basis thing to do.
Well, like I just said, I think there's such a gap in evidence that there's not much more the requirements can be dropped without barely having requirements in the first place. If we go to the requirements Zamasu outlined, the three ways of discounting scaling are all nigh-impossible to demonstrate with how the site's standards work:
  • Can’t reach said speeds in an atmosphere.
    • We'd need an actual statement from a character saying "Boy, it sure sucks that I can't fly at fast speeds in the atmosphere" for this to apply. Nothing else will work. Seeing them visually move at slower speeds in an atmosphere won't count since we don't consider that counter-evidence.
I don't think this is completely true though. Sure, a statement of that would definitely be better, but there's also the option that the character struggles to fly fast in a condensed setting. For example, take a character who's FTL, and have them fly from, say, one city to another far away city. If they're struggling to keep up their flight from between both points, that could be a fair indicator that they can't fly at those speeds at will in that instance. Or if they miss their intended target point.

Another example could be if the character tries flying fast in a condensed setting, like say a canyon, and they just go smack dab into things within the setting. That could be another indicator, since if they were able to fly at those speeds at will in a smaller setting, that wouldn't happen to them.

Of course, should we seriously consider alternatives like the ones Zamasu gave, there's probably more examples that could be named, but this is what I thought of on the fly.

  • Requires special needs to move said at said speed.
    • Again, you'd need an actual statement of "Damn, I wish it didn't take me 10 minutes to accelerate to my top flight speed" for this to apply.

Im pretty sure Zamasu's point here was by "special needs", the character would need some outside independent assistance in order to move at x speeds. As far as acceleration goes though? Im not sure.

But ofc, Zamasu should probably clarify this himself.

  • Has plenty of anti feats or consistent reaction feats on a far lower level.
    • Yet again, it's extremely tough to find anti-feats that people would actually take as anti-feats. You run and fight on a planet without flying off? That's just them sticking to the planet and the creators slowing down the fight so we can see it. They get tagged by or barely avoid attacks such as bullets and lightning? Those attacks just scale. You'd need many feats that are unarguably lower (having stated timeframes and speeds) to be able to apply this.
Well the point here wasn't just about anti-feats though, but also how consistent the level of reactions are from the character in relation to whatever higher reaction feat (which would enter the "it is or isn't an outlier" territory).

That being said, I don't disagree that it would be tough to find anti-feats from attacks. But I think a way around that would be dependent on what character is doing the attack against the other character.

Not to use a specific verse as the intention, but lets say for example, from DBS, we have Goku fighting someone in the Tournament of Power. This character is able to consistently keep up in battle with him, and part of their arsenal of attacks is lightning based. This character uses a lightning attack and hits Goku. It would be reasonable to say the lightning from the character scales since this character is consistently treated, in the context of DBS, to be of Goku's caliber. So it's reasonable to say the character is using a MFTL+ based lightning attacks.

Now as an example of the attack not scaling would be if a random, out of nowhere character who can manipulate lightning fought Goku and managed to hit him. Unlike the former example, in this latter one, this character has no pre established history of fighting Goku, being of his caliber or the caliber of other characters on his level. They have no feats for themselves beforehand, making them an unknown. The series also doesn't have any context to establish them as some big threat or powerful foe that someone of Goku's level would have trouble against. So in this case, the lightning attacks have no reason to be MFTL+ and the feat should be an anti feat against Goku.

Verse specific, I know, but for the sake of example, my point should be clear of what im trying to say. Using a characters background and how they're treated in the context of their series should make or break the speeds of their attacks like lightning-based ones. Also case by case, but it should give us a way out of the "tough to get anti-feats from attacks" issue.

I don't think you can make coherent standards that, say, cut out 20% of characters from having reaction speed scale while having 80% scale, at least with the way most people here interpret anti-feats and consistency. You'll either end up having 99% not scale, or have 99% scale. And to me, I'd prefer not scaling if there's a coherent real-world argument for it not scaling, and there's not sufficient evidence to overcome those real-world reasons.
See above pretty much. I understand the sentiment that your saying here Agnaa, but it sounds like this would just be more dependent on how we generally view anti feats and such and how to deal with them. The stuff I typed above could be an alternative to that, but again, if we're to seriously consider it, more of a discussion is obviously needed for it.
 
15,978
3,957
It's not impossible. There could be a case where the character is flying at MFTL+ speed across galaxies, and suddenly he notices obstacles or attacks only when they came very close to hitting him and reacts to avoid them. Is this situation unlikely? Yes. Impossible? No.
Well as I mentioned to DontTalk earlier about attacks, getting hit by attacks reaching you would be a different case from what this is, since involving attacks immediately puts attacking speed on the table for the user, and depending on how the given series treats that attack when others react, an attack that would match the travel speed, that would be grounds for scaling the reactions right there.

And yes, it may not be impossible, but it is practically borderline that when this expectation is one that hardly any series, 9/10, will do. Which is why I blievethere should be a middle ground to shorten the expectations we’re giving universally.
This is not an issue. It's following the correct practice as opposed to doing things incorrectly. It's common sense, not extreme caution. Doing the opposite would be extremely illogical.
Being skeptical of every single detail at every single step of the way is not common sense. That is nitpicking. And practically next to nothing would be acceptable if we did that.

There’s such a thing as being too cautious for a reason, and I argue that some aspects of this rule is doing precisely that.

Asking the wrong questions. That's also how common sense works and things happen normally. The burden of proof falls upon the claim that goes against the Occam's razor to claim higher results.
That’s not explicitly how the burden of proof works. Burden of proof always first goes for the claim that is the positive. Not the negative, as we don’t have to prove a negative until a positive is first established with evidence backing it. And claiming that something isn’t being done (like claiming one didn’t do this or didn’t do that) is not a positive.

To start off against the feat by first insinuating that the character did something, therefore the feat isn’t as good as people give it credit for, your claiming they did something the opposite of the higher interpretation. Meaning, you are the one making a positive first and foremost.

So unless my memory is foggy, burden of proof always has the positive be proven first before anything else needs to be provided against that.

The questions you need to be asking are:
What says the character did not slow down? What says the character did not see the destination and thought about landing there? What says that the character was flying at MFTL+ speed until he was 1 cm above the ground and stopped under a picoseond without crashing in the ground? Do we have any reason to assume such insanely illogical things?
See above
You should be knowing how burden of proof works by this point. You've been here for quite a while. This was unexpected from you.
Yes. And again, see above please. Unless I’m missing something, we’ve always had, and always do, have the burden of proof first be put on the one making the positive claim, that something was done.

And in this particular case, please explain how claiming factors were done to go against a feat, isnt the positive here.
The rule only states why flight speed through space does NOT normally scale to any other form of speed. It does not say that such a scaling is impossible. It's quite clear in that it mentions that it could still scale in some scenarios relating to "sudden obstacles while traveling at this speed" which already implies that the character was not prepared, and did not slow down. A case like this would need to be proven, rather than just assumed.
Okay and if a character still flies straight in at their desired location at average / full speed and still lands safely? As in without any deceleration or preparation?
 
10,764
5,014
Not replying to stuff I don't really have anything to say to.

Well when putting it like this, if it's possible to actually calculate, I guess that would be fine? But wouldn't this only apply if the character actually physically sees their desired celestial body from whatever distance away? Not just knowing where it generally is, but actually seeing the planet?

I guess. The only other explanation would be some sort of cosmic awareness. It would be possible for this method to not apply in that situation, if that cosmic awareness only lets the character know where planet-sized objects are and never has a resolution smaller than that. I wouldn't expect such a thing to be specified, but if it is then I'd be fine using how far away the ordinary human eye could discern the target location.

And again, I disagree with that, since this is still a shift of the burden of proof being done. Preparation and slowing down are both things that can absolutely be shown to be the case if that is the case or implied before or during the flight. What you are doing here is asking me to prove something wasn't done. Aka, you're asking me to prove a negative. Which isn't how the burden of proof works.

And you, by baselessly claiming that they're instead reacting absurdly fast, are asking me to prove that them reacting fast wasn't done. Aka, you're asking me to prove a negative.

Like I keep saying over and over and over, both of our arguments can be framed in terms of assuming something and asking the other to prove it didn't happen. The only claim here without a burden of proof is that their reaction speed is Unknown.

Suppose the character zooms in at average / full speed towards a planet, with no deceleration or prep. However, in this scenario, they notice the planet but still zoom in at average / full speeds for a successful abrupt landing. In other words, even if they notice the planet from x distance away, them still continuing to fly in at the same speed still gives them less reaction time to make the safe landing, and they still land successfully.

Would that not still give them less time to react, and thus, faster reaction speeds?


I don't think we treat reaction speeds that way. I wouldn't expect seeing something from far away and then taking an action at the last cm to mean you have reaction speed over the 1cm range, but I could be wrong, I'm not calc group.
 
Last edited:

Wokistan

Bioluminescent African American Working At The CIA
VS Battles
Sysop
Calculation Group
Human Resources
16,671
6,912
I got asked to opine here on the matter of "I don't think we treat reaction speeds that way. I wouldn't expect seeing something from far away and then taking an action at the last cm to mean you have reaction speed over the 1cm range, but I could be wrong, I'm not calc group."

To me, this doesn't give them less time to react, it just means they can stop on a dime. If you've flying towards an obstruction and you see it 10 seconds before you hit it and then just press the button late to flex, that's just you being precise. If you're flying and then suddenly you have 0.1 seconds to react to a sudden obstruction and stop, then that's reacting really quickly. Stopping all at once is really just a prediction/timing thing.
 

AKM sama

The Waifu Connoisseur
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
Human Resources
9,741
9,886
And yes, it may not be impossible, but it is practically borderline that when this expectation is one that hardly any series, 9/10, will do. Which is why I blievethere should be a middle ground to shorten the expectations we’re giving universally.
This is quite honestly a non-issue. So I don't know what to say here. You're basically saying that "oh shit now we won't be able to inaccurately scale MFTL+ travel speed to other forms of speed and my characters will be slower now".

Being skeptical of every single detail at every single step of the way is not common sense. That is nitpicking. And practically next to nothing would be acceptable if we did that.
Agree to disagree there. Doing something correctly is not nitpicking and it's not being skeptical. Doing something incorrectly is not a middle ground.

Burden of proof always first goes for the claim that is the positive
The positive claim here would be "my character has MFTL+ reactions/combat speed because he did not slow down while landing on a planet". This is talking about doing something differently, entirely opposite of Occam's razor, logic and common sense.

Okay and if a character still flies straight in at their desired location at average / full speed and still lands safely? As in without any deceleration or preparation?
Wok's point covers this.

Don't know what else to say at this point. It's getting circular with the same repeated arguments.
 
15,978
3,957
Not replying to stuff I don't really have anything to say to.

Well when putting it like this, if it's possible to actually calculate, I guess that would be fine? But wouldn't this only apply if the character actually physically sees their desired celestial body from whatever distance away? Not just knowing where it generally is, but actually seeing the planet?

I guess. The only other explanation would be some sort of cosmic awareness. It would be possible for this method to not apply in that situation, if that cosmic awareness only lets the character know where planet-sized objects are and never has a resolution smaller than that. I wouldn't expect such a thing to be specified, but if it is then I'd be fine using how far away the ordinary human eye could discern the target location.
Hmm. Going by that, I don’t think I have anything else to say for this point then.
And again, I disagree with that, since this is still a shift of the burden of proof being done. Preparation and slowing down are both things that can absolutely be shown to be the case if that is the case or implied before or during the flight. What you are doing here is asking me to prove something wasn't done. Aka, you're asking me to prove a negative. Which isn't how the burden of proof works.

And you, by baselessly claiming that they're instead reacting absurdly fast, are asking me to prove that them reacting fast wasn't done. Aka, you're asking me to prove a negative.
Uh, no, I’m not asking that if you? That’s twisting what I actually asked of you so you can give it the form of a negative, when it should be a positive.

I wouldn’t be asking you to prove they didn’t react fast. I would be asking you to prove if the factors you claim go against the level of reaction speed actually happened. There’s a difference.

Basically:

Me: This character does X feat to give them Y reaction speed.

You: They could have done X or Y thing, so the reaction speed isn't as good as given credit for.

Me: Okay, do you have any evidence of either X or Y happening?

The feat of them "not reacting fast" only exists if the existence of the factors you claim to go against it actually exists. Those are positives by insisting they existed to make the feat lower.

And no to the "baselessly claiming" when the feat in and of itself is what gives the basis for it to begin with.
This is quite honestly a non-issue. So I don't know what to say here. You're basically saying that "oh shit now we won't be able to inaccurately scale MFTL+ travel speed to other forms of speed and my characters will be slower now".
That is not what I said. My point is that the standard should not be placed so high up on the expectations scale as this, with reversing the burden of proof along with it.

Agree to disagree there. Doing something correctly is not nitpicking and it's not being skeptical. Doing something incorrectly is not a middle ground.
So no actual counter point. Got it.
The positive claim here would be "my character has MFTL+ reactions/combat speed because he did not slow down while landing on a planet". This is talking about doing something differently, entirely opposite of Occam's razor, logic and common sense.
And as I explained earlier, it is not. The positive claim is already fulfilled by the feat itself bringing that basis. The opposition suggesting something that could have happened to lessen the value of the feat is them insisting those factors exist in order for that to happen.

And insisting something exists is the positive claim. Henceforth, your burden of proof.
Wok's point covers this.
Going to respond to him.
 
15,978
3,957
To me, this doesn't give them less time to react, it just means they can stop on a dime. If you've flying towards an obstruction and you see it 10 seconds before you hit it and then just press the button late to flex, that's just you being precise. If you're flying and then suddenly you have 0.1 seconds to react to a sudden obstruction and stop, then that's reacting really quickly. Stopping all at once is really just a prediction/timing thing.
Im not really understanding the difference between this, other than one being suddenly unexpected and the other not being suddenly expected. To be precise with stopping yourself at the last moment would still require you to actively react before you just go smack dab into whatever you're about to collide with.

I can run in a direction that has a wall as an obstacle, see the wall before I run face plant into it, and purposely wait until extremely close to it before jumping over it or running around it. That still requires me to react at the later moment to avoid it.

Also, as one of my friends pointed out to me, the timeframe of the whole ordeal is also a very important factor as well. If only having a few second timeframe (or smaller) to land/avoid something during high speed travel, this has to give you relative reactions by default. Otherwise, your brain would literally not be able to process it otherwise. The discrepancy between the speed of your own thoughts and your flight speed wouldn't allow it. Having a bigger timeframe though, like a few minutes or an hour, wouldn't make it true reactions (since in timeframes like those, you should be able to have a reference to think it out).
 

Wokistan

Bioluminescent African American Working At The CIA
VS Battles
Sysop
Calculation Group
Human Resources
16,671
6,912
Here's an example. Talks about car crashes, as this is a thing that gets differentiated irl.

  1. Reaction Distance. First. Suppose the reaction time is 1.5 seconds. This means that the car will travel 1.5 x80.67 or 120.9 feet before the brakes are even applied.
  2. Brake Engagement Distance. Most reaction time studies consider the response completed at the moment the foot touches the brake pedal. However, brakes do not engage instantaneously. There is an additional time required for the pedal to depress and for the brakes to engage. This is variable and difficult to summarize in a single number because it depends on urgency and braking style. In an emergency, a reasonable estimate is .3 second, adding another 24.2 feet3.
  3. Physical Force Distance. Once the brakes engage, the stopping distance is determined by physical forces (D=S²/(30*f) where S is mph) as 134.4 feet.
Note how the reaction time is longer than both of the other steps combined. Having the advanced knowledge entirely cuts that part out. Not to mention, quick stops like that are often more just prediction and muscle memory than reaction when people know what they're doing.
 
15,978
3,957
Here's an example. Talks about car crashes, as this is a thing that gets differentiated irl.

  1. Reaction Distance. First. Suppose the reaction time is 1.5 seconds. This means that the car will travel 1.5 x80.67 or 120.9 feet before the brakes are even applied.
  2. Brake Engagement Distance. Most reaction time studies consider the response completed at the moment the foot touches the brake pedal. However, brakes do not engage instantaneously. There is an additional time required for the pedal to depress and for the brakes to engage. This is variable and difficult to summarize in a single number because it depends on urgency and braking style. In an emergency, a reasonable estimate is .3 second, adding another 24.2 feet3.
  3. Physical Force Distance. Once the brakes engage, the stopping distance is determined by physical forces (D=S²/(30*f) where S is mph) as 134.4 feet.
Note how the reaction time is longer than both of the other steps combined. Having the advanced knowledge entirely cuts that part out. Not to mention, quick stops like that are often more just prediction and muscle memory than reaction when people know what they're doing.
Unless im reading this incorrectly, isn't this example the way it happens because the car itself is mechanically unable to provide the stop once hitting the breaks? The passage notes that brakes don't activate instantly. They need more additional time to do that, so that already makes it longer for the car to actually stop prior to a crash.

On top of that, fictional characters and their reactions for the most part don't operate like a car. Unless the character is someone who uses some kind of vehicle as their means of transportation for travel or fighting. And as someone above put it, most characters are also capable of controlling their speeds to stop themselves immediately without additional stoppage factors like cars need to have.

Not to mention, muscle memory comes from the repetition of doing that very action many times over until the point where its very easy for the user. If someones doing MHS, FTL, or MFTL landing over and over and over again until it's just something repetitive for them, isn't that just more of a reason for it to be reactions?
 
10,764
5,014
And no to the "baselessly claiming" when the feat in and of itself is what gives the basis for it to begin with.

The feat in itself does not give reaction speed because there are other possible explanations than reaction speed. Selecting one of those explanations over the others is a positive claim.

What is the difference between you saying "This character does X feat to give them Y reaction speed." and me saying "This character does X feat to give them Y precision."?

Also, as one of my friends pointed out to me, the timeframe of the whole ordeal is also a very important factor as well. If only having a few second timeframe (or smaller) to land/avoid something during high speed travel, this has to give you relative reactions by default. Otherwise, your brain would literally not be able to process it otherwise. The discrepancy between the speed of your own thoughts and your flight speed wouldn't allow it.


I don't know what you're talking about here, where does this idea come from?
 
15,978
3,957
And no to the "baselessly claiming" when the feat in and of itself is what gives the basis for it to begin with.

The feat in itself does not give reaction speed because there are other possible explanations than reaction speed. Selecting one of those explanations over the others is a positive claim.
No, suggesting those possible explanations exist in the first place is what becomes the positive claim.
What is the difference between you saying "This character does X feat to give them Y reaction speed." and me saying "This character does X feat to give them Y precision."?
The difference is that my basis to claim reaction speed is coming from the provided feat, making my burden of proof already fulfilled. You are then coming in suggesting the existence of other details that may or may not be the case to undercut the feat.

You making those suggestions is the positive claim.
Also, as one of my friends pointed out to me, the timeframe of the whole ordeal is also a very important factor as well. If only having a few second timeframe (or smaller) to land/avoid something during high speed travel, this has to give you relative reactions by default. Otherwise, your brain would literally not be able to process it otherwise. The discrepancy between the speed of your own thoughts and your flight speed wouldn't allow it.

I don't know what you're talking about here, where does this idea come from?
Simple. If there's very very little time to think before you arrive at your destination, you're not going to have a moment to process what you will do for the landing, unless the speed of your own thoughts = the speed of your own flight.

This would only be the case if the timeframe for the feat is considerably bigger.
 
10,764
5,014
The difference is that my basis to claim reaction speed is coming from the provided feat, making my burden of proof already fulfilled.

If it was we wouldn't be needing to have this discussion. The character is not shown reacting, they are shown flying. You are inferring reaction speed from this. Which is a positive claim that proof is not provided for.

The only thing proven by those feats are that they can fly quickly. We don't see them quickly reacting.

Simple. If there's very very little time to think before you arrive at your destination, you're not going to have a moment to process what you will do for the landing, unless the speed of your own thoughts = the speed of your own flight.

This would only be the case if the timeframe for the feat is considerably bigger.


What?Thought speed is determined in terms of time, so if you have seconds before landing you'll be able to process that with normal human speeds.
 
15,978
3,957
The difference is that my basis to claim reaction speed is coming from the provided feat, making my burden of proof already fulfilled.

If it was we wouldn't be needing to have this discussion. The character is not shown reacting, they are shown flying. You are inferring reaction speed from this. Which is a positive claim that proof is not provided for.

The only thing proven by those feats are that they can fly quickly. We don't see them quickly reacting.
I’m taking about flying and landing here. Not just the former.


Simple. If there's very very little time to think before you arrive at your destination, you're not going to have a moment to process what you will do for the landing, unless the speed of your own thoughts = the speed of your own flight.

This would only be the case if the timeframe for the feat is considerably bigger.


What?Thought speed is determined in terms of time, so if you have seconds before landing you'll be able to process that with normal human speeds.
And if the entire journey from start to finish is only a few seconds? That is what the point on timeframe being important was referring to.
 
10,764
5,014
I’m taking about flying and landing here. Not just the former.

There is nothing inherent about landing that implies reaction speed, that's the point of bringing up alternate explanations.

Flying from one planet to another in a short timeframe requires being able to travel from one planet to another in a short timeframe. Creating a massive crater with a punch requires being able to create a crater with a punch.

Even alternate explanations for those (such as secretly teleporting to shorten the flight, or creating a crater with EE, earth manip, or magic-amped fists) still allow those same things to be done in the future. We'd say that character can still fly to other planets, and similar amounts of material. The feat is the feat, and it stands on its own and is able to be replicated.

But when a character flies from one planet to another, explanations of that feat do not require being able to dodge at MFTL+ speeds. The feat is the flying, you're inferring an additional ability from it. You're trying to claim reaction speed is an inherent part of these sorts of flying feats, but it isn't, it's nothing like other cases. Flying is an inherent part of flying, being able to make large craters with punches is and inherent part of being able to make large craters with punches.

That is why the evidence we're asking for is not flipping the burden of proof. This is not like giving an esoteric explanation for another type of feat. Here, the "feat" is flight speed, and everything added on, whether it's reaction speed, precision, cosmic awareness, or perception, is something added onto it. Thus, the position with no burden of proof, is to assume none of them until evidence is provided for them. NOT to assume reaction speed out of all of them without evidence, and then ask for proof for any other explanations.

And if the entire journey from start to finish is only a few seconds? That is what the point on timeframe being important was referring to.

Human beings can think on the timescale of seconds.
 
Last edited:

Seol404

Joke Battles Tiering System Scholar
Joke Battles
Sysop
5,881
835
This thread is starting to feel like a repeated loop of arguments that Agnaa, AKM, Wokistan and I have already responded too. Still in agreement with Agnaa and AKM, on this, I simply don't have anything left to add.
 

AKM sama

The Waifu Connoisseur
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
Human Resources
9,741
9,886
This thread is starting to feel like a repeated loop of arguments that Agnaa, AKM, Wokistan and I have already responded too. Still in agreement with Agnaa and AKM, on this, I simply don't have anything left to add.
My thoughts are the exact same.
 
15,978
3,957
Sorry for being late to respond to this. Was very busy.
There is nothing inherent about landing that implies reaction speed, that's the point of bringing up alternate explanations.

Flying from one planet to another in a short timeframe requires being able to travel from one planet to another in a short timeframe. Creating a massive crater with a punch requires being able to create a crater with a punch.

Even alternate explanations for those (such as secretly teleporting to shorten the flight, or creating a crater with EE, earth manip, or magic-amped fists) still allow those same things to be done in the future. We'd say that character can still fly to other planets, and similar amounts of material. The feat is the feat, and it stands on its own and is able to be replicated.

But when a character flies from one planet to another, explanations of that feat do not require being able to dodge at MFTL+ speeds. The feat is the flying, you're inferring an additional ability from it. You're trying to claim reaction speed is an inherent part of these sorts of flying feats, but it isn't, it's nothing like other cases. Flying is an inherent part of flying, being able to make large craters with punches is and inherent part of being able to make large craters with punches.

That is why the evidence we're asking for is not flipping the burden of proof. This is not like giving an esoteric explanation for another type of feat. Here, the "feat" is flight speed, and everything added on, whether it's reaction speed, precision, cosmic awareness, or perception, is something added onto it. Thus, the position with no burden of proof, is to assume none of them until evidence is provided for them. NOT to assume reaction speed out of all of them without evidence, and then ask for proof for any other explanations.
Hmm. Fair enough then on this I guess? I largely still don't understand why suggesting the existence of possible alternate explanations towards a feat would not be any more of a positive claim to make than to claim reaction speed is happening, but so be it then.
Human beings can think on the timescale of seconds.
While traveling at FTL, MFTL and so on in speed on the timescale of seconds?

Anyway, at this point, I guess most of the complaints I had before are fine now at this point? The one thing I know I definitely am still woefully against doing as far as speed goes is treating characters as disproportionally vast be default (you've seen what I had to say on why earlier and why it should be case by case.)
 

Qawsedf234

VS Battles
Sysop
11,058
3,623
The one thing I know I definitely am still woefully against doing as far as speed goes is treating characters as disproportionally vast be default (you've seen what I had to say on why earlier and why it should be case by case.)
The issue is this is just a legitimate author mindset: 1 2

Plenty of authors treat interstellar, or even inter continental flight speeds as completely separate speeds compared to their reflexes or quick reaction speeds.
 
15,978
3,957
The issue is this is just a legitimate author mindset: 1 2

Plenty of authors treat interstellar, or even inter continental flight speeds as completely separate speeds compared to their reflexes or quick reaction speeds.
This isn't what I meant Qawsed. Im not talking about reaction speed on my point on disproportion.
 
10,764
5,014
While traveling at FTL, MFTL and so on in speed on the timescale of seconds?

As long as they can still perceive the thing over that window of seconds, then yeah. Ignoring the stuff about the doppler effect making the light imperceptible, and ignoring how we can't look directly at the sun without frying our eyes, if we were to fly to the sun at the speed of light and needed to stop (wherever we were in space) within 1 second of it magically being turned green, we would be able to do that.

The part that makes "Humans can think on the timescale of seconds, even at MFTL+ speeds" unintuitive, is that for everyday-sized objects, we don't have perception better than a few kilometers, so going more than a few kilometers a second would reach us before we can react. And light travels just under 300,000 kilometers per second. But when we start getting to stellar distances, the sun being 150,000,000 kilometers away, these intuitions become misleading.

This isn't what I meant Qawsed. Im not talking about reaction speed on my point on disproportion.


What speeds are you talking about then, if not flight to reaction?
 
740
368
Basically, traveling at even near light speed will not allow us to actually see anything during mid-flight, except for fuzzines from bright light. Otherwise called leftover cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang. And this is just for near light speed travel. Which must make one imagine going AT light speeds, or the ridiculous degrees of MFTL+ that a large number of characters on this site are accepted as moving at. To even be capable of seeing anything from any given distance during travel, much less be capable of dodging something during travel, would have to make ones perceptions and reactions extremely impressive to scale here.
Bruh
 
15,978
3,957
While traveling at FTL, MFTL and so on in speed on the timescale of seconds?

As long as they can still perceive the thing over that window of seconds, then yeah. Ignoring the stuff about the doppler effect making the light imperceptible, and ignoring how we can't look directly at the sun without frying our eyes, if we were to fly to the sun at the speed of light and needed to stop (wherever we were in space) within 1 second of it magically being turned green, we would be able to do that.
I hardly see how. Like I said, the speed of their thoughts should need to be relative to the speed they are traveling at for this, especially in a window of seconds that the whole feat is being done at (or if it's in even smaller timeframes like a single second). Otherwise, they'd go smack dab into what they're traveling into before they even process the landing or how they'll do it, since they'd reach it before reacting. If a feat is done in, say, a matter of minutes and they are seconds away before approaching their destination, that's one thing. But if only have a few seconds from start to finish? Or A second from start to finish?

Im also not understanding why this example is "ignoring" basic science like the Doppler effect in order to have a point for the sake of convenience here either.
The part that makes "Humans can think on the timescale of seconds, even at MFTL+ speeds" unintuitive, is that for everyday-sized objects, we don't have perception better than a few kilometers, so going more than a few kilometers a second would reach us before we can react. And light travels just under 300,000 kilometers per second. But when we start getting to stellar distances, the sun being 150,000,000 kilometers away, these intuitions become misleading.
You kind of lost me on this point here. Isn't this just giving more reason that normal human speeds would not be able to think in such small windows while in FTL/MFTL travel?
This isn't what I meant Qawsed. Im not talking about reaction speed on my point on disproportion.

What speeds are you talking about then, if not flight to reaction?
Flight to flight is what im moreso referring to here. Or travel to travel in other words. Moving across [insert here distance] from one point to the other.
 
10,764
5,014
I hardly see how.

I don't know how to convince you otherwise, I think I laid out a pretty basic and clear case of how it's possible, and you're not giving me much of a response to work with.

Like I said, the speed of their thoughts should need to be relative to the speed they are traveling at for this, especially in a window of seconds that the whole feat is being done at (or if it's in even smaller timeframes like a single second). Otherwise, they'd go smack dab into what they're traveling into before they even process the landing or how they'll do it, since they'd reach it before reacting.


This is not true. You only need the time necessary to think. Speed is only relevant in as much as that it creates the timeframe, but reacting to something 30 meters away when traveling 10 meters per second requires the same reaction speed as reacting to something 3 light years away when traveling 1 light year per second. You won't smack into it because you have 3 seconds to think either way.

Im also not understanding why this example is "ignoring" basic science like the Doppler effect in order to have a point for the sake of convenience here either.


Because the only difference that makes is that we'd have to give these sorts of characters enhanced senses, which is irrelevant to the reaction speed part of the discussion that's actually important.

You kind of lost me on this point here. Isn't this just giving more reason that normal human speeds would not be able to think in such small windows while in FTL/MFTL travel?


I don't know how I lost you. I don't know how you could have gotten that impression, so I can't clarify.

Flight to flight is what im moreso referring to here. Or travel to travel in other words. Moving across [insert here distance] from one point to the other.


I don't remember this being a point of contention tho? We generally assume a statistic is the same across scenes as long as calc stacking isn't attempted with it, and as long as there aren't extenuating circumstances such as powerups or limitations. I don't think anyone was suggesting that characters should by default have two vastly different flight speeds.
 
15,978
3,957
This is not true. You only need the time necessary to think. Speed is only relevant in as much as that it creates the timeframe, but reacting to something 30 meters away when traveling 10 meters per second requires the same reaction speed as reacting to something 3 light years away when traveling 1 light year per second. You won't smack into it because you have 3 seconds to think either way.
Okay, but isn't this so largely dependent on what the timeframe and the distance together is then if thats the case?
Because the only difference that makes is that we'd have to give these sorts of characters enhanced senses, which is irrelevant to the reaction speed part of the discussion that's actually important.
Sure, but my thing is that im not seeing why it's just enhanced senses and that anything bigger couldn't be attributed.
I don't know how I lost you. I don't know how you could have gotten that impression, so I can't clarify.
You said that for everyday-sized things, a few kilometers is the best our perception is going allow us to see up to, so speed that goes farther than a few kilometers a second will reach us before we can react in time.

The distance light can travel in a second is far far above this, so would this not mean light speeds and higher would be beyond what human perceptions and thoughts can operate at?
Flight to flight is what im moreso referring to here. Or travel to travel in other words. Moving across [insert here distance] from one point to the other.

I don't remember this being a point of contention tho? We generally assume a statistic is the same across scenes as long as calc stacking isn't attempted with it, and as long as there aren't extenuating circumstances such as powerups or limitations. I don't think anyone was suggesting that characters should by default have two vastly different flight speeds.
Okay then, thanks for clarifying this. Let me ask 2 things for this then. So if we do with the idea that a characters travel speed or flight speed is the same across their instances of flight / travel, so long as no extenuating circumstances happen that suggest the speed is altered in some way

1.) The character then dodges obstacles while traveling/flying, we can begin scaling their reactions from that point?

2.) An opponent reacts to the characters flight or travel movement, we can begin scaling their reactions from that point?
 
10,764
5,014
Okay, but isn't this so largely dependent on what the timeframe and the distance together is then if thats the case?

Not really, it's the speed and distance together that gives us the timeframe, which is the important part.

Sure, but my thing is that im not seeing why it's just enhanced senses and that anything bigger couldn't be attributed.


...Because there's no reason for anything bigger than that?

You said that for everyday-sized things, a few kilometers is the best our perception is going allow us to see up to, so speed that goes farther than a few kilometers a second will reach us before we can react in time.

The distance light can travel in a second is far far above this, so would this not mean light speeds and higher would be beyond what human perceptions and thoughts can operate at?


But stellar objects are not everyday. They can be seen from millions of kilometers away.

1.) The character then dodges obstacles while traveling/flying, we can begin scaling their reactions from that point?


We can scale them to their calculated speed in that moment, but taking it from another scene would be textbook calc-stacking.

2.) An opponent reacts to the characters flight or travel movement, we can begin scaling their reactions from that point?


Probably, but I'm not sure exactly how calc stacking issues get avoided.
 
15,978
3,957
Okay, but isn't this so largely dependent on what the timeframe and the distance together is then if thats the case?

Not really, it's the speed and distance together that gives us the timeframe, which is the important part.
Yes, but suppose the character travels a larger distance in a shorter timespan, or an astronomically bigger distance in a shorter timespan? Thats what I meant when asking this.
You said that for everyday-sized things, a few kilometers is the best our perception is going allow us to see up to, so speed that goes farther than a few kilometers a second will reach us before we can react in time.

The distance light can travel in a second is far far above this, so would this not mean light speeds and higher would be beyond what human perceptions and thoughts can operate at?


But stellar objects are not everyday. They can be seen from millions of kilometers away.
See above pretty much for this. And hypothetically speaking, if the character wasn't seeing their desired celestial object from that distance? Or couldn't see them? Whichever case happens, what happens then if you're able to say?
1.) The character then dodges obstacles while traveling/flying, we can begin scaling their reactions from that point?

We can scale them to their calculated speed in that moment, but taking it from another scene would be textbook calc-stacking.
Why would it be calc-stacking?
2.) An opponent reacts to the characters flight or travel movement, we can begin scaling their reactions from that point?

Probably, but I'm not sure exactly how calc stacking issues get avoided.
See above.
 
10,764
5,014
Yes, but suppose the character travels a larger distance in a shorter timespan, or an astronomically bigger distance in a shorter timespan? Thats what I meant when asking this.

See above pretty much for this. And hypothetically speaking, if the character wasn't seeing their desired celestial object from that distance? Or couldn't see them? Whichever case happens, what happens then if you're able to say?


If the timespan's shorter then it requires higher reaction speeds, although these aren't necessarily within the same order of magnitude as the flight speed itself.

Why would it be calc-stacking?


Taking a character's calculated speed in one scene, and using that as a parameter in a calculation for another speed is the definition of Calc Stacking.

Calc stacking refers to the practice of using results from one calculation in order to calculate other feats.

Only parameters that can't change between calculations can be re-purposed.

Examples of calc-stacking that can not be applied


Character A moved so fast that character B couldn't react to him. So character A needs to have crossed the distance until he could be seen by character B again in the time that character B requires to react. Since we know from a calculation how long character B needs to react we can calculate the speed of character A based on that.

Character A has a certain speed through a calculation. He can not dodge the projectiles from character B from 2 meter distance. But Character C can dodge them from 1 meter distance, so character C has to be twice as fast as character A.
 
15,978
3,957
Yes, but suppose the character travels a larger distance in a shorter timespan, or an astronomically bigger distance in a shorter timespan? Thats what I meant when asking this.

See above pretty much for this. And hypothetically speaking, if the character wasn't seeing their desired celestial object from that distance? Or couldn't see them? Whichever case happens, what happens then if you're able to say?


If the timespan's shorter then it requires higher reaction speeds, although these aren't necessarily within the same order of magnitude as the flight speed itself.
Not automatically being in the exact same order of magnitude I can agree on, just wanted to ask what would happen if the timeframe for a feat over an astronomically big distance was extremely small.

And would this be the same thing going for characters that wouldn't see their desired destination from a distance then too?
Why would it be calc-stacking?

Taking a character's calculated speed in one scene, and using that as a parameter in a calculation for another speed is the definition of Calc Stacking.
Except, the calc stacking page explicitly says this is only the case because of a character's speeds having variations, which doesn't match up with what you and I recently discussed here regarding variation for speed (that a character wouldn't have 2 completely different levels of speed.)
 
10,764
5,014
And would this be the same thing going for characters that wouldn't see their desired destination from a distance then too?

Yeah, their reaction timeframe would only really "start" when they can see their destination.

Except, the calc stacking page explicitly says this is only the case because of a character's speeds having variations, which doesn't match up with what you and I recently discussed here regarding variation for speed (that a character wouldn't have 2 completely different levels of speed.)


If you want to make calculations involving speed to never be considered calc stacking, then you can try, but I'm just gonna stick to the page as-is which seems to take speed as one of the main concern areas for calc stacking.
 
Top