- 1,463
- 661
- Thread starter
- #201
Yeah because the current accepted usage of it is really outdated and weird. (The ability is valid in versus matches but not in scaling.)I mean, we can’t settle on arbitrary numbers like 3x or 5x for official profiles ratings. It’s a bit odd and headcanon territory.
It’s either Boost and Divide are accepted or not. All or nothing. That’s the point of the blog.
This is like, factually incorrect in almost every way though. Stacking of multipliers is perfectly fine ("If multiple multipliers are to be stacked, that are used upon each other, the evidence for the end result is equal to the total multiplier applied to the best feat. That means that if, for example, a character has a times 10 multiplier and later on gets another times 50 multiplier, than the evidence necessary to use both multipliers to get a statistic, is like that of a times 500 multiplier, as the best feat would be increased by a factor of 500 in that case.Cool yet there’s no numbers being used and we don’t wanna be abusing multipliers to the point we have to scrap it off again so we have to propose something so it ain’t an end of discussion and
In regards to multiplier stacking one should also pay attention to whether a multiplier applies to the strength of the character without the other multipliers applied or with the other multipliers already applied.")
as long as there're no major inconsistencies. Also, the blogs and statements from the series are nothing but numbers lol
Please do not consider this as an insult in any way, just an analogy. So, imagine there's a guy who has many pages of research about human anatomy. All of his research having photographic evidence to back it up. And he states that most living humans have two hands based on his research. Then some other random guy states that they actually have 10 hands on average without providing evidence. Who's right? Do we just, find a middle ground? Would it then be more correct to say that on average, they actually have 6 hands (the middle number)? No, the one that is correct is the one with uncontested evidence.We can’t even find a middle ground? I was sure we could propose something
Two wrongs don't make a right, if someone bothers you, tell them or leave, don't respond with rudeness. And saying "end of discussion" isn't rude, it's just a common phrase, one that should've been used awhile ago considering that the opposing side of this argument (not just you) has repeatedly made claims without evidence, statements that indicate a general lack of knowledge/remembrance on the topic, or just claims that factually are incorrect. Like, the multiply=/=increase, double doesn't indicate a number, and others. Although this won't stop me from discussing these topics, I'd prefer that if I had to discuss these topics with a non staff member, they'd at least be able to provide an argument which is constructive for both parties. And me and many others have voiced that we'd like to get staff to evaluate the thread and join the discussion, it's perfectly reasonable that after over a week of relatively pointless arguments and an absence of staff, we'd want to wrap up the thread.U are trying to mask the rudeness by again saying “end of discussion” like u can tell someone what to do, don’t forget all u got is a title and nothing more. It’s said to double “exponentially” meaning something of an even greater magnitude this isn’t hard to see here. If we can’t even propose anything then it’s either we take what was said or not
So no there is no end of discussion
Actually, it would be Starting Point(x2->x4->x8->x16->etc)It is not very difficult to realize that if Issei uses boost several times the increase would be like this: x2→x4→x6
Last edited: