Standardizing Default Assumptions For Calcs

[Agnaa]

I think we should make concrete a list of assumptions for various things for calcs. Stuff like "Several = 3", "Instant = 1 second", and so on. Probably an instruction page of some sort.

I believe that without this we end up with assumption inflation; people can pick the highest assumptions they've seen used for other calcs and reference them as support that that assumption's okay, causing values to creep up above other calcs describing similar events.

I wasn't going to make this a very large priority, but I recently noticed a stark difference between this two year old cloud calc and this new cloud calc. With the old calc I was told to assume a height of 5656m (9565m-4000m) for cumulonimbus clouds, and a timeframe of 10 seconds. For the new calc, the calcer was apparently told to assume a height of 8000m, and a timeframe of 5 seconds. For KE, that multiplies the end result by a factor of 5.66x, which to me feels like a fairly large difference to come just from picking different assumptions. I'm not sure exactly what assumptions are the best for cloud calcs, this is just where the issue was really made prominent to me.

EDIT: Other examples of stuff people have mentioned would be:

• One panel & implied to be fast = 5 seconds.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Using 5 seconds as a timeframe for a feat taking one panel has been the standard since I first joined the wiki. As for the 8000 meters, cumulonimbus clouds are the standard for storm clouds and the low-end height for them is 8000 meters when not in polar air (See here: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Cloud_Calculations)

"Several" also typically means "3 or more," so 3 is used as a low-end most of the time.

This is where these come from.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Using 5 seconds as a timeframe for a feat taking one panel has been the standard since I first joined the wiki. As for the 8000 meters, cumulonimbus clouds are the standard for storm clouds and the low-end height for them is 8000 meters when not in polar air (See here: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Cloud_Calculations)

"Several" also typically means "3 or more," so 3 is used as a low-end most of the time.

This is where these come from.

Wait, this is a calc group thread, I shouldn’t have commented. My bad.

 

[KLOL506]

BTW, the default horizon assumption according to our Cloud Calculations page is 20 km (Bear in mind that the 20km value is actually the radius of the cloud itself as you're looking at one side of the cloud while your rear sight of the cloud is another 20 km).

 

[Agnaa]

I wasn't asking where those came from, I was suggesting that we put agreed upon values in some concrete place, so people don't get random answers from different calc group members/their own research that can lead to pretty sizable differences in calc results.

 

[KLOL506]

I wasn't asking where those came from, I was suggesting that we put agreed upon values in some concrete place, so people don't get random answers from different calc group members/their own research that can lead to pretty sizable differences in calc results.

Oh. OK then. Sorry to bother you.,

 

[KingTempest]

Spoiler

This needed to be a thing a long time Agnaa, and I commend you for making this.

These are my suggestions, I'm not enforcing anything or saying "this is how it should be".

Several​

Several should have 3 as a lowball. The highball IMO should be anything less than 10, since this is usually what I see w/ grouping numerical values.
One - Self Explanatory
Few - Two or Three
Several - Three or More
Tens - Self Explanatory
Dozens - Groups of Twelve.

If they meant tens or more, they would've just said tens or more.
The term "many" is too vague, so that shouldn't be used in timespan related feats.
Several should have a Lowball of 3, a Midball of 6, and a Highball of 9. That's just me.

Instant​

An instant should be around 1 second, but there should be more standards on seeing if it was actually instant.
1 for feats is the smallest whole number possible. Someone saying an instant could just mean "a quick timeframe" since instant isn't always 1 second
I.E. Instant Ramen, it doesn't take 1 second for a bowl of Instant Ramen to be ready.
Standards for that could be in a different thread, but 1 should be fine for instant.

Clouds​

Pulling this off of Wikipedia, the range of Cumulonimbus clouds are from 500-16,000m into mid air.
I honestly think that this should be taken in a case by case basis. I always thought the 8,000m assumption was fine, but I'm open to any suggestions.

I forgot this was calc group only, my bad

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Question, What about standards sizes for "small island" and a "small countries?" (Just a couple random examples..)

Like for example in a light novel. It might not elaborate at all how big something is other than "Small Island was evaporated" and it maybe an unimportant island and irrelevant to the plot altogether other than just showing the strength of a character.

A "Small country" might be need more context though i guess...

Edit: What about crater feats with no stated depth? What would be the standard assumpted depth?

This will be my only comment here.

 

[Agnaa]

I feel like those might have too much variance to be usable. Some islands involved in fictional feats can be as small as a few hundred meters across, similar issues come up with "small country" and unstated crater depth. I think for those all we can do is use context clues from the text itself, give a tremendous lowball, or consider it unusable.

(Obligatory caveat that I'm not a calc group member so my word isn't final on this)

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Here's how I'd treat assumptions in calcs:

• Assume the minimum possible value for what you're calc'ing
• Don't calc the feat, it's too vague / you don't have enough information.

I think settling a "default" for certain assumptions is fine but I also think you guys should establish a point where the calc member evaluating it can just go "the feat doesn't give half the information you're using to calc, a calc is impossible".

 

[KingTempest]

Here's how I'd treat assumptions in calcs:

• Assume the minimum possible value for what you're calc'ing
• Don't calc the feat, it's too vague / you don't have enough information.

I think settling a "default" for certain assumptions is fine but I also think you guys should establish a point where the calc member evaluating it can just go "the feat doesn't give half the information you're using to calc, a calc is impossible".

Agreed.

If you have to assume half of the variables, you shouldn't be calcing the feat

 

[Agnaa]

@Dargoo I mostly agree, but I think dismissal should more depend on the variance in plausible assumptions, rather than how many assumptions need to be made. I feel like doing the latter would end up dismissing more text-based feats than is right.

This calc does need to assume a certain level for what "a child" is and what level of destruction "erasing one child" would be. Essentially 100% of its values are assumed to some degree instead of taken from the text, but I think that's fine since it lowballs and there isn't much variance.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

Also specifically regarding speed feats that involve being too fast for reaction/seeing I believe we should use the reaction time of 0.25 seconds as a safe assumption instead of the frames per second stuff or other timeframes that ends up wanking blitzing regular soldiers to like Hypersonic or something

 

[Axxtentacle]

I'm not a calc group but what would you do in the case of, say, a Hypersonic character being blitzed to the point that they can't react? Do you just say unquantifiable any move on?

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not a calc group but what would you do in the case of, say, a Hypersonic character being blitzed to the point that they can't react? Do you just say unquantifiable any move on?

I've sometimes seen stuff like that bump characters up a rating, but I don't think we do that any more. I think the standard is to rate the blitzer at "At least Hypersonic".

 

[Agnaa]

Bump.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I always wanted to avoid doing this since it ultimately always depends on the context. I always considered any argument involving a number of panels stupid.

Seeing how over the years the assumptions have grown more and more favourable it probably is a necessity now.

I would put any value as "At most x, unless the context pressures for more", though. Maybe also clarify low/mid/high ends.


I think the cloud calculation page, in particular, specifies which assumptions can be used quite well, though.

Also specifically regarding speed feats that involve being too fast for reaction/seeing I believe we should use the reaction time of 0.25 seconds as a safe assumption instead of the frames per second stuff or other timeframes that ends up wanking blitzing regular soldiers to like Hypersonic or something

My country calculates with 1 second as low-end for the reaction time of someone driving a car. Just to throw that in here.

But yeah, the 120 fps thing shouldn't be used.

 

[Wrath_Of_Itachi]

Is this thread a place I can talk about setting a standard for the usage of PE and KE?

 

[Agnaa]

I always wanted to avoid doing this since it ultimately always depends on the context.

Yeah, I think context matters, but context can be stripped away going from one calc to another (assuming things that were only justified by context when that context isn't there), and a lot of the time there isn't really much context, or there isn't really a conceivable context that would change things, like in setting a standard value for "several".

I would put any value as "At most x, unless the context pressures for more", though. Maybe also clarify low/mid/high ends.

I think the cloud calculation page, in particular, specifies which assumptions can be used quite well, though.

Those sorts of caveats/layouts seem fine by me.

Is this thread a place I can talk about setting a standard for the usage of PE and KE?

I don't think so.

 

[KingTempest]

Just asking.

What's the default assumption for speed of explosions?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Just asking.

What's the default assumption for speed of explosions?

Explosions don't have a constant speed. It depends on the chemical being exploded and the distance from the source.

See here for more details.

 

[KingTempest]

Explosions don't have a constant speed. It depends on the chemical being exploded and the distance from the source.

See here for more details.

Thanks DT

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I generally use 5 seconds for one page or one panel feats that are implied to be fast

 

[Axxtentacle]

Wasn't there a thread about using 1 as a high end, 3 as a mid end, and 5 as a low end?

 

[KLOL506]

Wasn't there a thread about using 1 as a high end, 3 as a mid end, and 5 as a low end?

FTFY

 

[Axxtentacle]

I'm surprised I never noticed that. But my question still stands.

 

[KLOL506]

I'm surprised I never noticed that. But my question still stands.

I think we did somewhere but I forgot which thread it was.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I generally use 5 seconds for one page or one panel feats that are implied to be fast

What 'implied to be fast' means is probably something that we should try to define further.
Like, a character might run a 500m race in two panels and then someone comments that the character is "very fast", but I wouldn't consider this indication for any timeframe beyond what a good runner can do.
For a start, instead of 'fast' it's probably better to say 'in a short timeframe'.

 

[Zaratthustra]

Wasn't 1 panel = 1s? I remember seeing this but not sure if it was in another thread regarding the timeframe or if it was on a blog.

Regarding the timeframe for things such as:

Hundreds = 200

Several hundreds = 300

Blink of an eye = 0.25 or 0 33 is what I've seen being used.

Instant = 1s and 0 1s same situation as above.

I think a Page for such things and many more that are within this area should be put there after a talk here.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Wasn't 1 panel = 1s? I remember seeing this but not sure if it was in another thread regarding the timeframe or if it was on a blog.

IMO 1 second would be way too lenient. Like, imagine the scene gets animated. I bet a panel being transformed into only 1 second of animation is pretty rare.

 

[KLOL506]

IMO 1 second would be way too lenient. Like, imagine the scene gets animated. I bet a panel being transformed into only 1 second of animation is pretty rare.

We pretty much use the anime scene only if it is a 1:1 replica of the manga/comic version.

 

[DontTalkDT]

We pretty much use the anime scene only if it is a 1:1 replica of the manga/comic version.

1:1 to a reasonable extent. A new camera angle or slightly different line of text isn't a problem. And for those that get faithfully translated I bet 1 second per panel is still rare.
Anyway, that kinda doesn't relate to the actual point I make. If even the animation takes longer than your conservative guess, then your conservative guess isn't conservative in the slightest.
Basically, if you guess a timeframe in a calc and later on an animation comes out that has a longer timeframe for a feat, that means you failed in doing an actual low-end estimate.