Using Guns

[Vzearr]

This topic has come up a few times in threads I've made and so I wanted to make a calc group discussion to come to a conclusion about it.

The Question:​

If a character who uses a gun (once/consistently) is calculated to move massively faster then that gun, would that calculation be considered an outlier?

The main argument I've seen KLOL506 use to justify it not being an outlier is this main thing.

The Rule Of Cool:​

Basically, guns are cool so if a character uses them it isn't really a sign that they aren't massively faster then them.

In these scenarios, Character A/B will be considered as 10's of x faster then bullets.

1. Character A knows Character B is massively faster then guns but Character A still uses guns against Character B (thinking it will work, even though they have prior knowledge Character B is massively faster then guns), both close range and long range.

2. Character A 'can' move massively faster then guns but uses guns, whether it be close range or long range.

3. Character A dies to bullets but is calced as faster then them.

Would these scenarios be proof Character A/B moving faster then guns is an outlier or not?

Just a simple thread.

 

[KLOL506]

The Question:​

If a character who uses a gun (once/consistently) is calculated to move massively faster then that gun, would that calculation be considered an outlier?

No. You need actual anti-feats of that character legitimately moving slower than bullets.

The main argument I've seen KLOL506 use to justify it not being an outlier is this main thing.

The Rule Of Cool:​

Basically, guns are cool so if a character uses them it isn't really a sign that they aren't massively faster then them.

Pretty much. Ask any sensible staff member around here and they'll tell you the same thing.

@Planck69 @UchihaSlayer96 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Dalesean027 @Dark-Carioca @CloverDragon03 @Theglassman12

In these scenarios, Character A/B will be considered as 10's of x faster then bullets.

1. Character A knows Character B is massively faster then guns but Character A still uses guns against Character B (thinking it will work, even though they have prior knowledge Character B is massively faster then guns), both close range and long range.

2. Character A 'can' move massively faster then guns but uses guns, whether it be close range or long range.

3. Character A dies to bullets but is calced as faster then them.

Would these scenarios be proof Character A/B moving faster then guns is an outlier or not?

1. No

2. No

3. Also no. Character dying to bullets would be a durability anti-feat, and even then, it depends on the dura feats the character has.

You need actual anti-feats that these characters can get outsped and blitzed by bullets. Good luck doing this for cosmic-level characters that have MFTL+ feats by the dozen. Cough Superman cough Thor cough

Lemme just bring up @UchihaSlayer96's comment for reference that perfectly handles this.

"Holy shit, is that guy moving at hypersonic+ speeds? No way... Wait... I can also move at hypersonic+ speeds. Actually nah, **** that, let me use this supersonic gun."

"HOLY SHIT, IS THAT SUPERMAN?! THE MAN WHO'S KNOWN FOR BEING FASTER THAN A SPEEDING BULLET?! WHO CAN ALSO MOVE AT SPEED FAR EXCEEDING THE SPEED OF LIGHT?! ACTUALLY NAH, **** THAT, LET ME USE THIS SUPERSONIC GUN."

Is this really all you have? It feels like the same thing in every thread I see you in at this point. It just seems to be a problem you have with fiction in general. You need to either get over it, or make a CRT changing all of our standards for ALL OF FICTION to accommodate guns getting used in a series being grounds for them being capped under bullet speeds. Might as well do the same for light beams and lightning bolts being used against someone getting treated as grounds for people needing to be below light or lightning speeds. This is just such a non-argument.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

(Unsure if i can comment here but i diden't find any rules that say that i can't, but if it is not alowed please delete this comment)

To summerize, the entire post, is NO.

*Edit

1. Character A knows Character B is massively faster then guns but Character A still uses guns against Character B (thinking it will work, even though they have prior knowledge Character B is massively faster then guns), both close range and long range.

This happens very often in fiction for varies reasons, characters prefer using guns even with knowledge of the character they are trying shoot is faster then the guns including themself, Why? Most of the time is simply for plot. We also know that the character it massivly faster then the gun, unless their are any anti feats it won't change anything.

2. Character A 'can' move massively faster then guns but uses guns, whether it be close range or long range.

Again, this dosen't prove anything.

3. Character A dies to bullets but is calced as faster then them.

This dosen't really mean anything alone for speed, It mainly would be a anti feat for Durability as the person above me stated. if we really gonna go into it, how do we even know it was a normal bullet? What are the scenaro that he gets hit by the bullet? Simply dying to a bullet dosen't mean anything alone. We don't even know if he was cuaght by suprised from behind making him not even realize he needed to dodge.

So my conclusion is simple "NO", We need more anti feats to be able to lower the speeds we have for the calc, and it is even more important if we have much more evidence for the calc. this alone is far enough for a anti feat.

 

[Vzearr]

No.


Pretty much. Ask any sensible staff member around here and they'll tell you the same thing.

@Planck69 @UchihaSlayer96 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Dalesean027 @Dark-Carioca


1. No

2. No

3. Also no.

You need actual anti-feats that these characters can get outsped and blitzed by bullets.

Lemme just bring up @UchihaSlayer96's comment for reference that perfectly handles this.

The difference between the superman example and threads I've made in the past (that you heavily disagree with) is consistency. What amount of bullet timing feats would you need for it to be consistent and make sense. 1? 2?

(Unsure if i can comment here but i diden't find any rules that say that i can't, but if it is not alowed please delete this comment)

To summerize, the entire post, is NO.

If you're going to comment you should give reasoning. Otherwise its worthless because you're not from the calc group.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

I mean, there is no singular rule of thumb that would apply to all fictional verses. Each verse has their own context that governs their individual situations.

But when looking at this type of thing, what you should be looking for is actual contradictions. For example, a character is calced at Hypersonic+ speeds, but consistently gets tagged by Subsonic weaponry, or has statements capping them at below sonic speeds that massively outweigh the Hypersonic+ feat in terms of consistency. This would make it an outlier. But the use of a gun in and of itself isn't grounds for a downgrade, like at all.

1. Character A knows Character B is massively faster then guns but Character A still uses guns against Character B (thinking it will work, even though they have prior knowledge Character B is massively faster then guns), both close range and long range.

Again, depends on the verse we're talking about. Not all verses' guns would even cap at Subsonic/Supersonic speeds in the first place, but assuming the verse in question does, then it would still depend on the context. The usage of a weapon in and of itself would mean nothing as far as a potential downgrade is concerned unless the characters in question are more consistently shown or stated to be slower than said guns. But even that isn't always ironclad because there's also stuff like the Rule of Cool and/or PIS to consider. For instance, you have MCU Quicksilver, who's DEFINITELY faster than a bullet, dying to bullets.

2. Character A 'can' move massively faster then guns but uses guns, whether it be close range or long range.

Again, as far as potential downgrades are concerned, that's about as convincing as "character A can't be above Subsonic because their weapon of choice is a bow and arrow". You'd need to establish an actual contradiction, such as character A, or those comparable to them, consistently being shown or stated to be slower than bullets, or just generally slower than wherever the calc in question places them, which is a case by case thing.

3. Character A dies to bullets but is calced as faster then them.

This case could be valid, but again it depends on the context. It may be a valid anti-feat for sure, but in some cases such as Quicksilver's, it could be rampant PIS.

 

[KLOL506]

The difference between the superman example and threads I've made in the past (that you heavily disagree with) is consistency. What amount of bullet timing feats would you need for it to be consistent and make sense. 1? 2?

Case-by-case. Frequency and consistency alone isn't the end-all be-all of feats. This applies to all types of feats. Narrative and context are king, always.

There is also the fact that bullets are some of the most inconsistent MFs in fiction. At their worst you'll see them clipping/blitzing Tier 1 beings.

 

[Dalesean027]

This topic has come up a few times in threads I've made and so I wanted to make a calc group discussion to come to a conclusion about it.

The Question:​

If a character who uses a gun (once/consistently) is calculated to move massively faster then that gun, would that calculation be considered an outlier?

The main argument I've seen KLOL506 use to justify it not being an outlier is this main thing.

The Rule Of Cool:​

Basically, guns are cool so if a character uses them it isn't really a sign that they aren't massively faster then them.

In these scenarios, Character A/B will be considered as 10's of x faster then bullets.

1. Character A knows Character B is massively faster then guns but Character A still uses guns against Character B (thinking it will work, even though they have prior knowledge Character B is massively faster then guns), both close range and long range.

2. Character A 'can' move massively faster then guns but uses guns, whether it be close range or long range.

3. Character A dies to bullets but is calced as faster then them.

Would these scenarios be proof Character A/B moving faster then guns is an outlier or not?

Just a simple thread.

I have to sleep for work now but I share the same thoughts as those above

 

[Vzearr]

But when looking at this type of thing, the thing you should be looking for is actual contradictions. For example, a character is calced at Hypersonic+ speeds, but consistently gets tagged by Subsonic weaponry, or has statements capping them at below sonic speeds that massively outweigh the Hypersonic+ feat. This would make it an outlier. But the use of a gun in and of itself isn't grounds for a downgrade, like at all.

The contradiction in and of itself is the fact they use guns, especially when its close range, your attack speed being largely faster then guns but then using them on opponents that are also largely faster then guns makes no sense. At that point just use your combat speed because it obvious your bullets won't land, its ineffective and therefore makes no sense, which leads to you wondering, are these characters truly largely faster then these guns?

For instance, you have MCU Quicksilver, who's DEFINITELY faster than a bullet, dying to bullets.

The thing is, here he's saving characters. So it would be a different situation entirely.

Again, as far as potential downgrades are concerned, that's about as convincing as "character A can't be above Subsonic because their weapon of choice is a bow and arrow". You'd need to establish an actual contradiction, such as character A, or those comparable to them, consistently being shown or stated to be slower than bullets, or just generally slower than wherever the calc in question places them, which is a case by case thing.

Yes.

But what is 'being shown' as slower then bullets to you. Using guns (close range) when you can move a 100x faster then them is internally inconsistent and makes no sense.

I guess the bow one is fine. Although its different I guess. If green arrow decides to use his bow that he knows is 10x slower than batman, over his fists that he knows could (supposedly, according to calcs) land on batman, would his fists really be 10x faster then his bow? It'd make no sense for him to use his arrows, even if he's mainly trained in using them, he'd have to have the IQ of an animal to pick something he knows won't hit batman over something he knows can hit batman. I'm unsure if I'm explaining this right.

 

[KLOL506]

The contradiction in and of itself is the fact they use guns, especially when its close range, your attack speed being largely faster then guns but then using them on opponents that are also largely faster then guns makes no sense.

Again, that's just you not understanding how we do things on this site or how powerscaling works in general.

At that point just use your combat speed because it obvious your bullets won't land, its ineffective and therefore makes no sense, which leads to you wondering, are these characters truly largely faster then these guns?

Again, argument from incredulity. Also, not a contradiction. You need solid anti-feats of them being consistently blitzed by bullets or them being physically unable to move as fast as bullets for this to qualify.

The thing is, here he's saving characters. So it would be a different situation entirely.

No, not really. Logic's the same.

Yes.

But what is 'being shown' as slower then bullets to you. Using guns (close range) when you can move a 100x faster then them is internally inconsistent and makes no sense.

Not really, no, again, it's just you not understanding how powerscaling works or how we do things on this site.

I guess the bow one is fine. Although its different I guess. If green arrow decides to use his bow that he knows is 10x slower than batman, over his fists that he knows could (supposedly, according to calcs) land on batman, would his fists really be 10x faster then his bow?

A bow's speed depends on the drawing strength of the person shooting it. That being said, yes, his fists would still be 10x faster than his bow (As we can't translate his LS to arrow speed here due to wacky KE rules).

Again, you need actual anti-feats of them consistently getting tagged/blitzed/outpaced by significantly slower objects than the calc. You can't just say "Is it really correct to say his fists are 10x faster" as this would be disingenuous and completely ignoring the factors under which the speed feat was performed.

It'd make no sense for him to use his arrows, even if he's mainly trained in using them, he'd have to have the IQ of an animal to pick something he knows won't hit batman over something he knows can hit batman. I'm unsure if I'm explaining this right.

Again, argument of incredulity. We don't run by that kind of headcanon here. We only go by what's directly shown to us.

 

[Vzearr]

Again, argument from incredulity. Also, not a contradiction. You need solid anti-feats of them being consistently blitzed by bullets or them being physically unable to move as fast as bullets for this to qualify.

You're misusing that fallacy. Also, how is it not a contradiction, using something you and your opponent are 10x faster then expecting it to work is plain nonsense. You could call it plot induced stupidity at first but when its consistently happening its an obvious contradiction.

Not really, no, again, it's just you not understanding how powerscaling works or how we do things on this site.

Appeal to tradition.

A bow's speed depends on the drawing strength of the person shooting it. That being said, yes, his fists would still be 10x faster than his bow (As we can't translate his LS to arrow speed here due to wacky KE rules).

If his fists are 10x faster than his bow, and his opponents are 10x faster than his bow. Would it make sense for him to consistently use his bow even though the chance of an arrow landing are low? No. It wouldn't. If it's consistently contradictory, you can't excuse it.

Again, you need actual anti-feats of them consistently getting tagged/blitzed/outpaced by significantly slower objects than the calc. You can't just say "Is it really correct to say his fists are 10x faster" as this would be disingenuous and completely ignoring the factors under which the speed feat was performed.

The anti feat would be the fact he's using his bow when he and his opponent can move 10x faster then it. At first it would be plot induced stupidity but if its happening consistently you can't use pis as justification, plain contradictory.

I think a scenario would help explain.

"Ah, god damn it, look's like I've gotta fight batman. My punches and kicks have a chance of landing on him whilst my bow has an incredibly low chance of landing on him. I think I'm going to use my bow for this fight and all my other fights where my opponent and I are both 10x faster then the weapon I'm using."

See how it makes no sense? You could say its plot induced stupidity but if this is consistently happening, its clearly not plot induced stupidity.

 

[Vzearr]

However, I don't think me and KLOL506 will come to a conclusion, so I think its better to just wait for further calc group input.

 

[KLOL506]

You're misusing that fallacy. Also, how is it not a contradiction, using something you and your opponent are 10x faster then expecting it to work is plain nonsense. You could call it plot induced stupidity at first but when its consistently happening its an obvious contradiction.

I'm not, this is literally textbook argument from incredulity, as in, it doesn't satisfy what you believe makes or breaks a projectile-dodging feat and scaling to it.

Also, PIS is when a super-smart and intelligent villain ends up not killing the hero immediately which leaves them open to the hero stomping them, or characters being defeated by people well below their operating physical range.

Appeal to tradition.

Welcome to Powerscaling 101.

If his fists are 10x faster than his bow, and his opponents are 10x faster than his bow. Would it make sense for him to consistently use his bow even though the chance of an arrow landing are low?

Ask yourself this: Does it have to make sense?

Who am I kidding: the answer is an obvious no. But again, people don't use ranged weapons solely for speed.

No. It wouldn't. If it's consistently contradictory, you can't excuse it.

That's not how contradictions work.

Contradictions would be Green Arrow getting blitzed by projectiles significantly slower than what calcs portray him to be as.

The anti feat would be the fact he's using his bow when he and his opponent can move 10x faster then it. At first it would be plot induced stupidity but if its happening consistently you can't use pis as justification, plain contradictory.

That's not how anti-feats, contradictions or PIS work.

All of them operate on characters being consistently blitzed by what's faster than them. Usage of equipment does not count.

I think a scenario would help explain.

"Ah, god damn it, look's like I've gotta fight batman. My punches and kicks have a chance of landing on him whilst my bow has an incredibly low chance of landing on him. I think I'm going to use my bow for this fight and all my other fights where my opponent and I are both 10x faster then the weapon I'm using."

See how it makes no sense? You could say its plot induced stupidity but if this is consistently happening, its clearly not plot induced stupidity.

But it does. Of course, convenience, range and versatility are but merely three of many possible applications of a ranged weapon being in the arsenal of such characters.

 

[Vzearr]

Ask yourself this: Does it have to make sense?

Who am I kidding: the answer is an obvious no. But again, people don't use ranged weapons solely for the speed

But there are instances where they use ranged weapons close range, instances where you declined it being an outlier.

That's not how contradictions work.

Contradictions would be Green Arrow getting blitzed by projectiles significantly slower than what calcs portray him to be as.

Why isn't that how it works? Explain so I could better understand why I'm 'wrong'.

That's not how anti-feats, contradictions or PIS work.

All of them operate on characters being consistently blitzed by what's faster than them. Usage of equipment does not count.

Why doesn't it count? Because of range? Well then, if its close range why wouldn't it count? Because of versatility? The amount of versatility most characters have with their guns isn't enough to substitute a 10x speed difference.

Welcome to Powerscaling 101.

Should probably remove that fallacy from the vs battle wiki 'fallacies' page then.

 

[KLOL506]

But there are instances where they use ranged weapons close range, instances where you declined it being an outlier.

So? That still isn't a valid anti-feat.

Why isn't that how it works? Explain so I could better understand why I'm 'wrong'.

Convenience, range, versatility, efficiency, rule of cool, take your pick. We've already explained these reasons ad nauseam as for why your arguments don't hold up remotely as well as you think they do. If you still don't think those are satisfactory answers or "Valid reasons" as you demand, then we can't help you any further.

In rarer cases, some characters can amplify their weapons using a universal energy system to be just as fast and strong as them.

Sometimes, you just need to accept that things aren't gonna go your way in the realm of powerscaling based on your feelings and what-have-you, as it is a subjective matter in and of itself. Two sides of a powerscaling community will never accept a single universal solution for a myriad of reasons, and this happens to be one of those cases where we will agree to disagree, but as we are staff, we get to override your opinions because we do not view it as logical, and move on.

Why doesn't it count? Because of range? Well then, if its close range why wouldn't it count?

Convenience. Sometimes it's just easier to use weapons you have on yourself on standby than say, your fists, if you are in a precarious situation, like a deadlock or something else, or you know you're not gonna win a fistfight solely because of the strength/durability factor.

Because of versatility? The amount of versatility most characters have with their guns isn't enough to substitute a 10x speed difference.

They don't need to necessarily hit their characters to achieve the goal they seek, in fact, they don't even need to do it head on, they can just catch those people off-guard (In which case, not even the best of your senses or speed will be able to make up for that, since you weren't combat ready to begin with and were exploited). Case in point? Grapnel guns. They add extended mobility despite being occassionally slower than their wielders, and it allows them access to places normally inaccessible via normal human limbs. Or it allows them to pull down stuff from places where sure footing is guaranteed.

Also, you vastly underestimate some seriously lethal sharpshooters in fiction who can make trickshots with super complex guns from miles away using high-tech bullets, it's not necessarily the velocity of their bullets that determine their lethality, but their aim, trajectory and creativity that allow their bullets to pass through all and any angles to get at their target.

Should probably remove that fallacy from the vs battle wiki 'fallacies' page then.

LMAO no, you seriously think me saying "Powerscaling 101" is a good-enough reason to remove fallacies from that page willy-nilly? Be a little bit more sensible, man.

 

[Vzearr]

I still don't know when the "rule of cool" was considered valid reasoning for power scaling.

 

[KLOL506]

I still don't know when the rule of cool was considered valid reasoning for power scaling.

Ever since powerscaling's been a thing. It's always been about measuring the member size of fictional characters to see who's the flashiest or the biggest. We don't need a rule to say that out loud. We just follow what the source material shows us. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is just semantics and petty nitpicking.

 

[Vzearr]

Ever since powerscaling's been a thing. It's always been about measuring the member size of fictional characters to see who's the flashiest. We don't need a rule to say that out loud. We just follow what the source material shows us. Nothing more, nothing less.

The only person I've ever seen use the "rule of cool" is you. If it doesn't even have a small section on a page how am I supposed to believe its valid in terms of vsbw scaling.

 

[KLOL506]

The only person I've ever seen use the "rule of cool" is you. If it doesn't even have a small section on a page how am I supposed to believe its valid in terms of vsbw scaling.

Again, it's one of those few unspoken rules only very few people who are completely clueless about how this site operates would question. And yet at the same time, it is one of the foundational cornerstones of powerscaling. Show which MF's got the coolest, baddest, flashiest and strongest moves to debate who wins.

We have many such unspoken rules here that are oft-forgotten but still held up to a degree, sometimes because of how painfully obvious they are. Basic common sense would easily help you figure them out, but that takes years worth of experience.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

The only person I've ever seen use the "rule of cool" is you. If it doesn't even have a small section on a page how am I supposed to believe its valid in terms of vsbw scaling.

Let me ask you something, just trying to ascertain something here.

Let's take a character like Deadpool or Deathstroke, okay? Hypothetically, let's say these guys had 5-10 bullet dodging feats that were calced in the Supersonic to Hypersonic ranges, and little to no direct contradictions in the form of them being unable to dodge bullets, being stated to be slower than bullets, etc. They still used guns, though, as their weapons of choice. Even against people canonically comparable to themselves.

Would you still view such as a case as contradictory? Or would you take no issue with them being rated as faster than bullets via these hypothetical calcs?

 

[Vzearr]

Again, it's one of those few unspoken rules only very few people who are completely clueless about how this site operates would question.

We have many such unspoken rules here that are oft-forgotten but still held up to a degree, sometimes because of how painfully obvious they are. Basic common sense would easily help you figure them out, but that takes years worth of experience.

Bit condescending and rude. But its whatever.

Let me ask you something, just trying to ascertain something here.

Let's take a character like Deadpool or Deathstroke, okay? Hypothetically, let's say these guys had 5-10 bullet dodging feats that were calced in the Supersonic to Hypersonic ranges, and little to no direct contradictions in the form of them being unable to dodge bullets, being stated to be slower than bullets, etc. They still used guns, though, as their weapons of choice. Even against people canonically comparable to themselves.

Would you still view such as a case as contradictory? Or would you take no issue with them being rated as faster than bullets via these hypothetical calcs?

Depends how much faster they're compared to the guns. If its a rate where using guns would be an inconvenience I'd consider it outlier-ish (of-course including consistency).

Deadpool fights Deathstroke. Deadpool gets a calc where he's 5x faster then bullets, he uses guns but no bullets land on Deathstroke whilst Deadpool is losing the fight. At that point its an inconvenience, and would be an outlier.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

Depends how much faster they're compared to the guns. If its a rate where using guns would be an inconvenience I'd consider it outlier-ish (of-course including consistency).

Deadpool fights Deathstroke. Deadpool gets a calc where he's 5x faster then bullets, he uses guns but no bullets land on Deathstroke whilst Deadpool is losing the fight. At that point its an inconvenience, and would be an outlier.

I see. Thanks for the answer.

 

[Metalballrun]

I don't think someone using a gun against someone supposedly (in calculations) much faster than the speed of bullets invalidates the calculation immediately, but we can't just ignore the fact of the matter than guns were used against a super fast character, either.

It is a start of a conversation. It's a question. The explanations come after that. We can just admit that the website is inclined to using calculations, even high end ones, as long as it is perceived as consistent enough. If the gun/bullet instance is rare enough, it could be the outlier in of itself (outliers are not limited to high end feats, low end feats can be outliers too). Or we can go to the route where fictional versions of IRL guns are considered more powerful, as is the case for verses like Resident Evil.

Or perhaps the concerns are valid, and the characters really aren't that fast.

I'm also really averse from using Marvel/DC comics as examples, even with my limted knowledge, just scanning through respect threads show the pendulum characters would swing all over the place with their feats.

I would agree with the general sentiment that it's a case-by-case basis, also.

(I'd also point out that sometimes, the subjectivity of powerscaling emerges in these instances, as stated with the site's reliance on calculations and how others may not agree with that, so the only thing to do is play by the site's rules).

Also kinda funny how Vzearr is getting big leagued.

 

[Vzearr]

I would agree with the general sentiment that it's a case-by-case basis, also.

Yeah but I want to establish the case by case basis. KLOL506 only believes cases where anti feats like getting hit by bullets make feats like the above 'outliers', however I disagree. So yeah. Just want to confirm what reasoning for rejection or acceptance should be used for the 'case by case basis'.

Also kinda funny how Vzearr is getting big leagued.

What does this mean? I don't think my prescence is being ignored or anything.

 

[Metalballrun]

Well, someone might have a better suggestion. Fiction is vast and various, it'd be difficult to set any standard for that other than being open to exploration when a potential inconsistency is present.

Big leaguing isn't just about ignoring, it can also be putting someone under the assumed position of ignorance to the relevant topic(s). Not trying to drum up controversy, that's just how it sounds in most scenarios.

 

[KLOL506]

Yeah but I want to establish the case by case basis. KLOL506 only believes cases where anti feats like getting hit by bullets make feats like the above 'outliers', however I disagree.

I specifically mentioned "moving slower than/getting outpaced by" bullets or getting blitzed by things slower than that. Getting wounded by bullets is a durability anti-feat.

The only case-by-case basis here that is already accepted and widely used (And will continue to be done so) is basically checking whether the narrative and context of the story support the feat or the character's capacity to perform that feat, and or whether there are enough anti-feats to render the calc unusable, AKA outlier, which basically has its own rules and guidelines to follow, which we have already been following for quite sometime. A character wielding a ranged weapon despite having calcs putting them faster than the speed on its own means nothing. Like UchihaSlayer said, you still need to establish an actual contradiction like the ones we mentioned above.

So yeah. Just want to confirm what reasoning for rejection or acceptance should be used for the 'case by case basis'.

Read above.

 

[Vzearr]

I specifically mentioned "moving slower than/getting outpaced by" bullets or getting blitzed by things slower than that. Getting wounded by bullets is a durability anti-feat.

The only case-by-case basis here that is already accepted and widely used (And will continue to be done so) is basically checking whether the narrative and context of the story support the feat or the character's capacity to perform that feat

This is just appealing to tradition. I don't see it as valid reasoning behind why I'm 'objectively' wrong.

Like, I gave an example here. The 'traditional' way you're trying to use would say the example I gave is incorrect, could you explain why?

 

[KLOL506]

This is just appealing to tradition. I don't see it as valid reasoning behind why I'm 'objectively' wrong.

Narrative and context objectively remain king when trying to analyze a feat, as this is the best way to faithfully interpret the primary source without injecting any needless headcanon into the mix and completely twisting the meaning according to your own feelings and baseless conjecture, as does finding any anti-feats and their frequency to see if the character is operating within their usual levels or not. "Appeal to tradition" is simply not the right term to use here at all.

Like, I gave an example here. The 'traditional' way you're trying to use would say the example I gave is incorrect, could you explain why?

Because fiction doesn't give a shit. The writers don't give a shit. Especially not about our battleboarding shenanigans.

I think you don't seem to understand that writers/artists just sometimes make these design choices based on nothing beyond it fitting with their setting, the kind of story they're trying to tell, fitting with that specific character's background, etc. It's not really something they actively think of with the context of power-scaling in mind. Like this "soldier/mercenary" type character using guns for no other reason than it fitting his "archetype", even though the dude can level a building with a punch or something.

99% of artists and writers pay absolutely no mind to bullshit like this, only we do.

At this point I am thoroughly convinced nothing we say or do will convince you, and nothing you say or do will convince us. All I can say is, your mindset regarding this topic is just plain bizarre, as if trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, and also something that I, the CGMs or the rest of the staff will simply not accept in the long run. My apologies.

 

[Vzearr]

At this point I am thoroughly convinced nothing we say or do will convince you, and nothing you say or do will convince us. All I can say is, your mindset regarding this topic is just plain bizarre, as if trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, and also something that I, the CGMs or the rest of the staff will simply not accept in the long run. My apologies.

Oh well. No point in us arguing over this then. I guess we can just wait for more staff (hopefully).

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

1. Character A knows Character B is massively faster then guns but Character A still uses guns against Character B (thinking it will work, even though they have prior knowledge Character B is massively faster then guns), both close range and long range.

2. Character A 'can' move massively faster then guns but uses guns, whether it be close range or long range.

I don't see how either of these would disprove Character B's speed. If anything, Character A is probably dumb. Like with this logic, Flash wouldn't even be Subsonic since criminals keep shooting him with guns.

3. Character A dies to bullets but is calced as faster then them.

This one would require a lot more context, and in many cases, would likely fall under a durability anti-feat. Was the character weakened? Were they fatigued? Were they distracted? Were they immobilized? It requires much more context.

It's very much a case to case basis.

 

[Vzearr]

I don't see how either of these would disprove Character B's speed. If anything, Character A is probably dumb. Like with this logic, Flash wouldn't even be Subsonic since criminals keep shooting him with guns.

It doesn't mean Character A is dumb, in a lot of cases it just proves Character A being largely faster then bullets doesn't actually make sense.

For example: Character B could perform a hypersonic+ feat (calced) by dodging Character A's gunfire. Character A could see this but then believe using guns is still going to work against Character B. This would imply (In a good amount of situations) that Character B didn't actually preform a hypersonic+ feat.

 

[ByArrow]

It doesn't mean Character A is dumb, in a lot of cases it just proves Character A being largely faster then bullets doesn't actually make sense.

For example: Character B could perform a hypersonic+ feat (calced) by dodging Character A's gunfire. Character A could see this but then believe using guns is still going to work against Character B. This would imply (In a good amount of situations) that Character B didn't actually preform a hypersonic+ feat.

Character A may believe that he just missed, he may believe that he took action before shooting, he may believe that he has a better chance with a gun than with a fist. Character A may believe many things, but that doesn't mean they are true. Also, unless you're a writer, you don't know for sure what he believe.

According to your logic, characters like Superman and Flash should be slower than weapons.

 

[Arcker123]

It doesn't mean Character A is dumb, in a lot of cases it just proves Character A being largely faster then bullets doesn't actually make sense.

For example: Character B could perform a hypersonic+ feat (calced) by dodging Character A's gunfire. Character A could see this but then believe using guns is still going to work against Character B. This would imply (In a good amount of situations) that Character B didn't actually preform a hypersonic+ feat.

To be clear, you genuinely believe such a situation would be an anti feat for Flash's speed?

 

[Arkenis]

If guns are consistently used in a verse where the characters consistently are faster than I would conclude that the guns are simply faster than real world guns at that point. I think something that's also ignored is that reacting to gun fire from mid range or pb requires superior speed to the gun already so the use of guns is still advantageous especially ones that fire fast.

 

[Vzearr]

Character A may believe that he just missed, he may believe that he took action before shooting, he may believe that he has a better chance with a gun than with a fist. Character A may believe many things, but that doesn't mean they are true. Also, unless you're a writer, you don't know for sure what he believe.

Character A believed Character B travelled to the moon and back and then did a swirl around the galaxy, unless you're a writer you're not sure what Character A believed.

Character A may believe that he just missed

Plausible, if character A states it.

he may believe that he took action before shooting.

Then in this scenario Character A's reaction speed would be slower then Character B's movement speed meaning it doesn't actually apply to my example. So this is a non-point.

he may believe that he has a better chance with a gun than with a fist

Having a better chance with a gun when Character B can't actually get hit by one? Cmon now. That's plain nonsense.

According to your logic, characters like Superman and Flash should be slower than weapons.

Nope. You've seemingly misunderstood "my logic". The superman and Flash example doesn't actually go both ways.


I don't know if I made this clear, I thought I did but, Character A would also scale to above the speed of his guns in this situation.

To be clear, you genuinely believe such a situation would be an anti feat for Flash's speed?

Never said that.

If guns are consistently used in a verse where the characters consistently are faster than I would conclude that the guns are simply faster than real world guns at that point. I think something that's also ignored is that reacting to gun fire from mid range or pb requires superior speed to the gun already so the use of guns is still advantageous especially ones that fire fast.

What is "mid range" to you.

 

[Arkenis]

What is "mid range" to you.

Anything smaller than 5 meters.

 

[Arcker123]

Never said that.

It was a question. One that's pertinent for you to answer because that's the analogy that guy gave to argue against you.

 

[Vzearr]

Anything smaller than 5 meters.

How exactly would you be faster then the bullets in that scenario?

To be clear, you genuinely believe such a situation would be an anti feat for Flash's speed?

If the question is really that relevant. No.

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

I basically agree with what everyone else said, it's a case-by-case issue depending on the specifics and circumstances of a scenario

 

[Arcker123]

If the question is really that relevant. No.

The problem is that your reasoning directly entails it would.

It doesn't mean Character A is dumb, in a lot of cases it just proves Character A being largely faster then bullets doesn't actually make sense.

For example: Character B could perform a hypersonic+ feat (calced) by dodging Character A's gunfire. Character A could see this but then believe using guns is still going to work against Character B. This would imply (In a good amount of situations) that Character B didn't actually preform a hypersonic+ feat.

Random goons in DC know Flash can blitz bullets and such. That's what he's famous for, yet they still use guns against him when he stops robberies and such. This would be an anti feat for flash as explained here.

 

[Vzearr]

I basically agree with what everyone else said, it's a case-by-case issue depending on the specifics and circumstances of a scenario

The main purpose is, whether or not a character using guns would be a valid reason to call feats outliers. KLOL506 disagrees.

Here's an example:

Deadpool fights Deathstroke. Deadpool gets a calc where he's 5x faster then bullets, Deadpool uses guns against Deathstroke but no bullets land on Deathstroke, whilst Deadpool is losing the fight. At that point its an inconvenience to use guns (if you're truly 5x faster then them), and it would be an outlier.

KLOL506 would disagree with this reasoning. I presume.