Tokyo revenger calc replacement

[Vzearr]

Old calc and why it's wrong:​

1. It uses forearm length, you should be using what's closest to the crater as POV issues would make the crater seem smaller then it actually is.
2. It uses fragmentation because of the cracks, which is wrong as the crater has depth, and the reason we say it's fragmentation is because of the cracks, however, the actual depth would be pulverised, or at least violently fragmented, as we don't see them/only see 2 extremely small fragments. Cracks in a crater don't imply fragmentation for the entire volume, when we see pebbles falling out of the crater, it's much more likely to be v-frag.​

New calc​

...​

Old calc and why it's wrong:​

It's not wrong per say, it's just a lowball as the actual timeframe calculated by gravity makes the feat higher.​

New calc​

This new calc is more precise.​

 

[Migue79]

New calcs check out at a cursory glance.

 

[Elizhaa]

These changes look fine.

 

[Theglassman12]

Looks ok to me

 

[Agnaa]

Calc 1: While I see the point about destruction values for some feats, I think it fails when the cratering is in a wall like this. The rest of the volume didn't have to disappear, it could've just bulged out the other side of the wall, leading to fragmentation still making sense. And I do think, in general, that this sort of interpretation change would require revising a LOT of calcs to be far higher, and so it should only be done after that idea's vetted through its own calc group thread.

Calc 2: I think it's worthwhile pointing out that if you scale based on the shot where he actually hits the boxes (which is closer to the feat temporally, and has him be more of the focus), you get him being ~43 cm off the ground, leading to a much longer timeframe. Why should we use the measurement you did, rather than this one?

So I don't like either of these at the ends you've put down as accepted.

 

[Vzearr]

Calc 1: While I see the point about destruction values for some feats, I think it fails when the cratering is in a wall like this. The rest of the volume didn't have to disappear, it could've just bulged out the other side of the wall, leading to fragmentation still making sense.

That's not how things like this work, fragments were pushed outwards, you wouldn't just have fragments pushed inwards and outwards, also, if he went through the wall it would have been made much more apparent, from what I can see, the character hasn't gone through the entire wall.

Calc 2: I think it's worthwhile pointing out that if you scale based on the shot where he actually hits the boxes (which is closer to the feat temporally, and has him be more of the focus), you get him being ~43 cm off the ground, leading to a much longer timeframe. Why should we use the measurement you did, rather than this one?

What.

 

[Agnaa]

That's not how things like this work, fragments were pushed outwards, you wouldn't just have fragments push inwards and outwards, its one or the other when being slammed, also

I don't see why not. Have the general brunt of it be cracked and deformed backwards, while a few stray splinters end up deflecting the other direction.

if he went through the wall it would have been made much more apparent, from what I can see, the character hasn't gone inside the apartment.

I'm not saying he went all the way through, just that it deformed. Like this.

What.

This shot.

 

[Vzearr]

I'm not saying he went all the way through, just that it deformed. Like this.

If it was deformed like that fragments wouldn't go inside, that makes literally no sense, they would have no where to go.

This shot.

That shot isn't as accurate as the shot I use due to it's angle.

 

[Agnaa]

If you throw a metal weight at glass, it shatter outwards, not inwards to where it was hit.

Because there's nothing for it to bounce back off. In this case, the wall is cratered, but still largely remains intact.

If it was deformed like that fragments wouldn't go inside, that makes literally no sense, they would have no where to go.

I don't know what you mean by "inside" here.

That shot isn't as accurate as the shot i use due to it's angle.

Huh? Why would that change things? Especially since the difference is so drastic.

We're not talking about a case where two shots show basically the same thing, but one is just 5-10% off. The shot I'm referencing shows the dude with his legs thrown up parallel to the ground, while the shot you're referencing shows the dude basically standing. I think other factors matter a lot here than the minutiae which shift the measurements a few percentage points.

 

[Vzearr]

I don't know what you mean by "inside" here.

Inside the wall, like you're suggesting.

Huh? Why would that change things? Especially since the difference is so drastic.

The angle is weird, pixel scaling it isn't possible.

 

[Agnaa]

Inside the wall, like you're suggesting.

I think some, due to random chance, collide enough that their energy just bounces them around the remaining debris and the object making the impact, leading them to be left behind. On top of that, cracks in the material itself can't really fly out.

The angle is weird, pixel scaling it isn't possible.

It absolutely is. The dude's right next to the boxes, and we know that the height of the boxes shows their distance from the floor.

There is no world in which any inaccuracies from the angle there would result in a ~2.2x discrepancy. The shots simply represent different things, and we have to choose which of those representations should hold priority.

 

[Vzearr]

I think some, due to random chance, collide enough that their energy just bounces them around the remaining debris and the object making the impact, leading them to be left behind. On top of that, cracks in the material itself can't really fly out.

Fragments have nowhere to go, so they must go outside of the crater, which we see, you're suggestion makes no sense.

It absolutely is. The dude's right next to the boxes, and we know that the height of the boxes shows their distance from the floor.

He's slightly higher then the boxes. Sure though I guess.

 

[Agnaa]

Fragments have nowhere to go, so they must go outside of the crater, which we see, you're suggestion makes no sense.

Are you denying that debris is sometimes left behind in collisions?

Also, I edited something into one of my previous posts shortly after posting, and I think you missed it

And I do think, in general, that this sort of interpretation change would require revising a LOT of calcs to be far higher, and so it should only be done after that idea's vetted through its own calc group thread.

Like, if we are actually going "Every single cratering feat has to be at least v. frag, and is probably pulv" then we'd need to revise a lot of calcs to be >10x higher.

 

[Vzearr]

Are you denying that debris is sometimes left behind in collisions?

What.

Like, if we are actually going "Every single cratering feat has to be at least v. frag, and is probably pulv" then we'd need to revise a lot of calcs to be >10x higher.

My interpretation is correct though. As of current, it's 3 calc group members agreeing with 1 disagreeing.

 

[Agnaa]

What.

I don't know what you're missing, so I don't know what I can say to clear things up.

My interpretation is correct though. As of current, it's 3 calc group members agreeing with 1 disagreeing.

• DMUA explicitly disagreed.
• Migue said he only gave it a cursory glance.
• Dalesean said you're wrong, but that he lacks the energy to fight it.

So there's you, one dubious agreement, and three explicit disagreements.

And regardless, I think I have a point that we should not be silently rewriting site-wide calc standards in this way.

If this was an ordinary calc group thread clearly saying that this is what you wanted to do, and you got the votes for it, then **** it, that's what we're rolling with. But I think sneaking it through for this one single calc is improper form. You shouldn't be able to sneak a new interpretation that makes 5% of calcs on the site 10-30x larger in this way. That's too big to have this little oversight.

 

[Vzearr]

Dalesean said you're wrong, but that he lacks the energy to fight it.

I find this really disrespectful considering I'm trying to help multiple verses at once. I'll make a calc group thread.

 

[DMUA]

I find this really disrespectful considering I'm trying to help multiple verses at once.

Right.

So there's you, one dubious agreement, and three explicit disagreements.

And regardless, I think I have a point that we should not be silently rewriting site-wide calc standards in this way.

If this was an ordinary calc group thread clearly saying that this is what you wanted to do, and you got the votes for it, then **** it, that's what we're rolling with. But I think sneaking it through for this one single calc is improper form. You shouldn't be able to sneak a new interpretation that makes 5% of calcs on the site 10-30x larger in this way. That's too big to have this little oversight.

Anyways, going make it even more clear I do indeed disagree with calculations and even principles used here.