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.
