- 4,480
- 2,354
- Thread starter
- #201
I'll respond to that point tomorrow
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Btw, we still didn't apply Cow Mangler atomizing cows, even if it doesn't scale to mercs we still need to give Soldier 8-B as optional equipmentSo to conclude, the Mercs would be 9-B, 9-A with weapons as the explosives and other weapons that they get harmed and incapacitated by if not outright die from are consistently calced at .001 Tons, with a single feat for Pyro that has not been accepted by the calc team and, as explained both in this thread and in the comments on the blog itself, said feat is extremely vague with numerous problems regarding its viability as a feat and scaling
Which feat exactly? He has no calced 9-A feats, only half a dozen .001 ton calcsEither way, to not get side tracked, sure, what Weekly said is on point if you entirely ignore Scout's feat
Dargoo already summed up why its too vague, but the calc itself hasnt even been accepted on the blogand that Pyro's feat isn't really vague enough to be completely inapplicable.
Because some people just keep talking about weather or not it can be used when it's a discussion for this thread. If someone just gave a quick "Yes" or "No" on the math that would be great.Dargoo already summed up why its too vague, but the calc itself hasnt even been accepted on the blog
So to conclude, the Mercs would be 9-B, 9-A with weapons as the explosives and other weapons that they get harmed and incapacitated by if not outright die from are consistently calced at .001 Tons,
"There are far more 9-B feats than 9-A feats, and the mercs are constantly killed by 9-B stuff"
And? There are more 9-C feats than 9-B feats too, since most guns cap out at 9-C+, and said guns can kill the mercs. And there are far more guns than explosives in TF2. But do we downgrade the mercs to 9-C? No, we currently assume that the weapons are 9-B, due to being able to harm mercs that can survive 9-B explosions.
Take literally almost any character above Tier 9/8, and I'll guarantee you that they have far more Tier 9/8 feats than whatever their current tier is. But do we downgrade them to that tier? No, just because it's not the most commonly shown, doesn't make it an outlier, nor does it make it unusable.
In this case, the mercs and their weapons would simply be "likely/possibly 9-A" since their weapons can harm characters like Pyro and Scout, who can survive 9-A, or near 9-A explosions.
Heavy being one-shot by a single rocket/gibbed by pipes is a very obvious inconsistency, since even the weakest member is capable of surviving multiple.
with a single feat for Pyro that has not been accepted by the calc team and, as explained both in this thread and in the comments on the blog itself, said feat is extremely vague with numerous problems regarding its viability as a feat and scaling
"The Pyro feat is too vague, they could've gone somewhere else while the explosion happened, thereby lowering the results"
There are quite a few flaws with this assumption.
First of all, Pyro was just shown to be right above the classic mercs, and when the explosion, Scout says "Oh, there he is"indicating that Pyro is indeed within the building. And Scout's first thought when the explosion happened wasn't "oh an explosion", but he knew it was Pyro, indicating that Pyro may be known for doing this kinda stuff on a regular basis. Yes, there was a POV switch, but Pyro already ignited his Flamethrower in the previous panel. And by the next panel, the explosion happened. It couldn't have been that large of a timeframe.
Second of all, well do you see Pyro anywhere outside the building? The shack is in a closed off space, the only way he could've gotten out was through the door. And Pyro is nowhere in sight in the 2nd panel, which can only mean he was in the building. Since, well the explosion couldn't have happened otherwise. Not to mention, it is a VERY small building, its more of a shack. So regardless of his position within the building, it really shouldn't lower the results by that much.
And third of all, well it would be INSANELY out of character for Pyro to strategically escape the building and set off the explosion then. Pyro absolutely LOVES fire, and if he sees it, he will literally run towards it. Not to mention his Pyrovision, where he see's everyone as babies, ponies, or whatever. He views everything as his own fantasy world, as seen as when he viewed literally murdering the entire BLU team as playing with them.
So to assume Pyro went far enough away from the explosion to the point where it would be knocked down all the way into 9-B is not only an unrealistic assumption, but also INCREDIBLY out of character for Pyro.
Not really true. If it's less than like, 20 centimeres away, the math will actually have the results increase. Which obviously doesn't make sense, but it does go to show that if you're point blank you'll pretty much take the whole blast, and Pyro is already pretty close even on the high ground, and it's unlikely he even stayed there while the blast goes off. It is pretty likely he dropped down, got even closer to the source of the blast and then the explosion occured. But, at the end of the day that is an assumption, so one could probbaly argue they should use inverse square law using the height Pyro is at when we're shown him there.I'm confused how we can scale that to him? You cannot scale someone to the full explosion unless they do something like holding the blast in their hand or the blast came from inside of them.
Based on what exactly? The 9-A feat has already been ampliy explained as being too vague to use and too much of an outlier to be scaled to if it can even be used, and the feat itself is currently being recalced as the calc group hasnt even approved it and currently is talking about the math being wrong. And its the only 9-A feat hereTo be frank, I fully support a full 9-A upgrade with the evidence given.
That was a crit pill, which one shots literally everyone.Pills don't one-shot tho
even the weakest classes can take at least 1
Except it's not? Except its .001 tons as the yield, not the gap away from 9-A? Except the fact that there are 5 calcs for rockets that are all .001 tons to support this being a consistent yield?Except the fact that there's an accepted calc that's 0.001 tons away from 9-A?
There was literally a red box around it highlighting it how have you not seen it yet?Except it's not? Except its .001 tons as the yield, not the gap away from 9-A? Except the fact that there are 5 calcs for rockets that are all .001 tons to support this being a consistent yield?
I've seen you guys highlighting the highest possible yield for one calc that is 4x higher than the consistently calced yields for the same rockets including the calced yield on the same calc which was .001 tons yesThere was literally a red box around it highlighting it how have you not seen it yet?
And it was accepted by an admin.I've seen you guys highlighting the highest possible yield for one calc that is 4x higher than the consistently calced yields for the same rockets including the calced yield on the same calc which was .001 tons yes
The .001 ton calcs were also accepted by admins so what does that tell you?And it was accepted by an admin.
That both ends are acceptable?The .001 ton calcs were also accepted by admins so what does that tell you?
It is ground based though. Everything that likely caused the explosion is on the ground.The Pyro feat isn't usable for their dura. The calc uses a ground-based formula despite not being on the ground (this makes the result higher), and, as mentioned above, wouldn't scale to Pyro's dura anyways since you need to be at the very center of an explosion for that to work.
Yes, so why is it that you continue to push for a single calc with a rsult that is 4x higher than any other one of the other five calcs for the same weapon all of which have identical yields?That both ends are acceptable?
The problem is he didnt calc it as a ground-based explosion, he calced it as an air-based explosionIt is ground based though. Everything that likely caused the explosion is on the ground.
he used the ground formula thoughtThe problem is he didnt calc it as a ground-based explosion, he calced it as an air-based explosion
No, they didn't. They used overpressure.The problem is he didnt calc it as a ground-based explosion, he calced it as an air-based explosion
They did not, no.The problem is he didnt calc it as a ground-based explosion, he calced it as an air-based explosion
It ain't on the ground though. Like the sphere he calc'd only barely grazes the ground, so something is off here, lad.It is ground based though. Everything that likely caused the explosion is on the ground.
This is what i was referring toIt ain't on the ground though. Like the sphere he calc'd only barely grazes the ground, so something is off here, lad.
I mean, honestly the way it's presented with the explosion going through the roof, it almost feels cylindricalIt ain't on the ground though. Like the sphere he calc'd only barely grazes the ground, so something is off here, lad.