- 13,490
- 21,646
Worst case I can just bring it up to you separately, but given that it didn't seem intentional at all, I'm fine to just drop it
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
WAHOOOO! Mario Bros AP Revisions (M&L Brothership Spoilers) - Part 1 (Feat-Gathering)
- Thread starter ShakeResounding
- Start date
ShakeResounding
He/Him- 9,101
- 8,328
- Thread starter
- #442
Any update on the adjustments to the calc? Can we have some calc group members come in and give their opinion?
- 16,645
- 14,663
Ill reply later first, been ******* with zelda yap.
Imagine having to magic wand a 260000px^2 (dont imagine it, it's dogass).
ShakeResounding
He/Him- 9,101
- 8,328
- Thread starter
- #444
OOF.
Don't sweat it broski, take your time. Just wanna keep this in the people's mind.
Don't sweat it broski, take your time. Just wanna keep this in the people's mind.
- 1,203
- 357
This would probably be a good feat, can it be calced? Wario Land 2 takes place in the planetoid that was created in Wario Land 1 by the genie that Wario defeated.
- 16,220
- 12,759
- 1,203
- 357
Since it was done through the genie's powers I thought he could probably scale to it but nvm.
- 2,438
- 1,596
Is there any evidence or visual indicator it's reality warping? Just curious.
- 394
- 246
…It’s magic Omnificence
The genie literally just did a little hand movement and suddenly a moon popped into existence.
Do I need to go farther or like?
- 2,438
- 1,596
Oh, sorry. Stupid me, lol
Last edited:
- 16,645
- 14,663
Wonderful news everyone, the 4 hour pixel counting ended up as 9-A and NOT High 8-C, let alone 8-C
(This is bad, waste of time, I wanna become Old Snake).
I'm also redoing it because I think I overextended the line by 1-2 pixels, causing it to be about 0.4% larger than it should on the outside
They're expanding outward from a center point.
Also, it is being pushed, kinda why the KE formula is used. We also see numerous times throughout the game the clouds parting overland masses with the clouds, well, being pushed? If it's anything like the constant precedence... I'm not sure why the semantics is being used here, but it isn't even inherently wrong anyhow. Wouldn't effect the calc either way though.
Complaints have to actually check out.
You're dedicated to evalution, but multiple users who have that same role, disagree.
Your word doesn't supercede numerous other's who also have that role. Trying to argue as such, or, ironically, lacktherof, is a what gets this place a bad rep. The claims need to be founded or check out, yours, do not.
Being a funny color name doesn't give you free reign to yap against majority.
You're interpreting a statement not open to it.
Who decides what is and what isn't little time? It's relative to the context.
Ignoring the fact you're arguing 20m still, which goes against your later claim of saying Wario's placement doesn't matter (It does to this point, in fact it's the crux of it), or the scene is seconds later (While arguing it's a cut), among other things (Like him leaving immediately), all shoot down the timeframe you're proposing.
It isn't even consistent with your LATER suggested speed of the final horizon velocity.
20 minutes is little time for some things, but not here. Context is key.
Not even what they say. If someone said the whole world is normal again or at peace or whatever in that context, they'd be a goddman liar. Why WW2 even, that's a lil ****** up.
I'm not humoring this.
Wario sitting on his ass for 20 minutes isn't realisticwell it is, but not for this.
The clouds acting like they do, ain't either.
Like not much to say beyond it is how it is, ain't my fault, but it is the way it is.
They're not minor, and it doesn't matter if they're minor even if they were, if it fluctuates at all, especially inverse (as in, it picks up in velocity), we have a issue with your proposal.
Unless we just have different definitions of exponential or your defintion is relegated to absolute insane numbers (Though for me, it's relative to the base), I don't think it's a strong word, I think it describes it pretty aptly.
Don't say dishonest, as if I didn't just waste way to much time frame by framing that shit and counting the corners of each frame.
Or well, that's what I would but I was looking at the wrong frame rate (I was working in a higher frame rate in editing and plopped the 30fps footage into there, I've since double checked everything though so this isn't applicable for this post), so it's more like 600-700kms, but, it doesn't actually matter because it's still ridiculous. The point stands, arguably even better now, there's still a difference of tens to hundreds of times at points.
Though to call me dishonest isn't arguing in good faith though, I pray I don't need to call you out on that. Where calling me dishonest is a blatant accusation, one that doesn't even hold up. One can just check if need be, it isn't like I'm not literally posting the instances in albums.
"The Calc is calculating a cloud being gone over continents. A very very large area. I recognize it is hard to imagine that."
Like what is this? Why is your argument just essentially "you can't recognize it"? That's condescending.
I'm not even doing that with you, I ASSUME you have those capabilities, I'm just arguing it makes no sense to go with your proposals BASED on said things. I'm not assuming you just straight can't comprehend big thing or placements.
"I encourage you to look closely, it's a particularly vibrant pink, right about the mouth of Bowser's castle. It is three pixels long, because that is 40 kilometers on this map."
Like yep, we know how big the area in the calc is, and? Why word it like so anyway? Koops ain't in the game fyi but that's not relevant.
"This is so obviously, painfully wrong, that it is bizarre that it is being defended as though it wasn't. I will engage with the above post, but given that this cannot be interpreted as reasonable under any definition, I don't think it's really worth it to continue debate around this as though a point is had. It is not my intent to be rude, mind, it's plausible people don't really recognize the full error of their ways until it is presented visually."
Like what is this? Knock it off, even I, with all my hardass abrassivity, don't think people fail to recognize "the full error of their ways until it is presented visually." At worst I just assume goonery, at best they might believe what they say and think their own has more merit and thus agree to disagree. I don't treat them like the only reason they disagree is because they somehow can't comprehend basic values. The fact this was even uttered is baffling to me, ever think maybe people just don't agree? Whether or not it's your intent doesn't matter, that IS pretty rude.
Even when I go on a tangent explaining shit, it's moreso to convey it to others, or for my own sake. Like as we see below, me going over the cloud speeds, that isn't me going over it because I just assume you don't know what the hell you're talking about. It's me going over it because you made a claim "minor fluctuation", and I'm going to showcase that isn't the case, it isn't minor.
If people said "or the whole area ain't that big" or whatever, showcasing why it's big and acting like you've been would be a different, it'd be in response to something, but this was, never, at any point, a point of contention. As it stands it's an unjustified condenscending remark.
Doubling down with that can only really be taken as "I'm right, those who don't agree are in the wrong, only reason they might not agree is because they just haven't been shown as such visually", is wild.
That isn't the case, at all, I even said as much. It's condescending.
Everyone here knows how big a continent is. Everyone here has basic object permeance. That isn't why you're being contested. Also don't much appreciate the offhand remark about lazy evaluations. Uncalled for.
I don't care if you don't think it isn't condescending, I'm sure we both know it doesn't matter what one's self thinks in regards to how they talk, word stuff, yadda yadda, I'm telling you don't. Don't like it.
You might not think so, but what you think doesn't matter, what matters is how others interpret it, you know that's how it works, you also know the whole "mods expected better" yap. The fact you somehow 180 this back on me being condescending when I've been actively replying to you in a civil manner, is asinine.
I've even made sure to double over and trim out "*****" and what not to appease the masses here.
I even had dudes double check this shit before posting.
But, if something I've said, specifically, you took offense at, cool, you could point it out and I'd make an attempt to rectify if only so I could get you people off my ass, but either way, two wrongs don't make a right.
We're supposed to not just guess or add in extra presumptions Bambu, when every argument made IS an assumption or trying to interpret stuff that isn't actually viable for interpretation, we have a problem.
The things I've presented.
1. The cloud speed is widly inconsistent, and even speeds up (Fact).
2. Wario is in the same place as the immediate following scene (Fact).
3. Audio isn't cut, and moreover continues between zoom out (Fact).
4. The variance in cloud speed is notably large (Fact).
5. The 20m timeframe gets contradicted due the speed at which it was going, actively shifted, and realtime cutscene happen in a quicker time window (Fact).
6. A character says a string of words said in past tense that emphasized the whole world (Fact).
7. This statement is immediately after the cloud cutscene (Fact).
Other stuff probably idk I have a headache and multitasking, but at no point have I used headcanon, it's either been objective, or rooted in context.
She would not have specified the whole dimension. She could have used future tense wording, like "will soon return to normal", "will return to normal", "will soon be normal", "returning to normal", etc. She could have said something like "Peace is returning to the shake dimension", or any other million variants that work fine to align with your claims.
That isn't the case, that isn't what is said. She words it present tense, actually, past tense,. By the time she says it, it has already happened as that's what that string of words entails and conveys.
Restored (Past tense), peace to the whole shake dimension (clarifies it isn't localized, but it's already occured over the whole world).
What they say does matter, why do you think they're saying it.
It's exposition, it informs us, the viewers, what happened, how it happened, or whatever. When a character says something, it's deliberate. They aren't real mfs who can trip over words, say something a slight bit off what they meant, etc.
If she says it that way, the intent is obviously "Yes the whole dimension has been returned to normal". Yet under your arguments it hasn't, that one level would still be living hell because it hasn't been fixed yet and won't be for like, 19 minutes after they claim as such.
Also I'm pretty sure they ARE reality warpers but that's beside the point.
One can't just say "there's cinematic timing", that implicates a cut in time. Yet there isn't one.
If there isn't a cut, then no cinematic timing is at play. You even acknowledge that some points don't have a cut in time below like the Wario one, all while arguing there is. To only argue timeskips in places we know there isn't one either, due to audio cues and just common sense, yet there would NEED to be in, specifically the second final shift, for your lower velocity speed to be viable, yet it's that scene we can outright confirm no such skip exists (it's just a zoomout, we can even hear them still).
The goal isn't to explain what "cinematic timing is", it's to prove it's happening here, which it isn't.
Whether or not you accept it, you're not the only staff here.
In fact, but I was kinda arguing otherwise anyway, the visuals seem all over, so just take the time in which we know it's gone, as opposed to twisting, cherry picking, whatever off visuals.
This option, by your own stance, has been rejected it would seem. Unfortunate. You do not want to do this, so, unfortunately, the alternative isn't the faulty 20m, but rather last known velocity as that would be what the majority of the clouds dispersed at.
Yet this speed goes against your proposals such as the 20m yap. Hence, issues, hence this very argument.
I'm not sure what the intent here is, whether it's intentional or not, I don't care, but that's what's happening with this line of reasoning.
If we want to go with your claims, they need to be sorted out first and deemed viable.
You're not trying to convince me, but rather, convince everyone else. Much like I've given up trying to convince you, and instead, convince everyone else.
The speed you're proposing is contradicted. You realize it does fluctuate, so arguing it further doesn't work.
And, while you might think it's minor, it isn't, you disagree that it's big doesn't change that it is. Unless we just have very different definitions of what "minor" entails, I wouldn't say dozens to hundreds of times is that.
At worst it's almost a magnitude, that isn't something you can just handwave.
I agree with you here, they likely didn't give a shit, why would they? It's, outside of this niche nerdy af topic, so trivial most wouldn't even recognize it. But that goes both ways, do you think the initial speed is any more correct over the final speed? Or any others? No, it's simply arbitrarily cherry picking. Of course you argue physics, I get that, but that doesn't even work either, due to how up and down it goes and physics isn't changing the speeds it hits so....
Given you actively acknowledge this, the premise of the argument falls apart, adding onto that, it also shoots down all arguments hinging on "physics" and "slowdown", given it gets quicker, not slower.
Not withstanding this has no bearing on her statement and intent of the scene anyhow. The fact this is the point you say is "realistic" of mine, is kind of a red flag in and of itself. What should matter, is if it's actually the case, not if it's realistic.
You're asking us to cherry pick a faulty contradictory speed, assume numerous cinematic cuts in a real time scene with one such cut being especially unrealistically long given the character's at play and where they are, and to ignore a explicit statement.
And, well, you've already left, but explaining yourself is kind of important, especially if other people have to judge. Hence this very reply.
Are you talking about what you said, that I said was condescening? No. I don't even recall if you bolded anything, I'm not gonna crucify a dude for using the built-in text options or yapping in caps to draw attention or emphasis.
It moving at, idk, 3km a sec (it at least covered it's own thickness within that 1.2 seconds~, just eyeballing it though, if you wanna calc it exactly be my guest).
Is not the same as it clearing the horizon in the 1.23 seconds (like 80km).
That is not equal, that is ludicrously disproportionate.
Also, this is just straight up wrong.
"But using that approximate timeframe to justify continentally sized areas seems insane, especially when as you said, we can determine how long it would take, based on how fast it was going from the beginning bit we see."
"I stand by just using the speed derived from the initial clearing period and then recognizing the actual value would be lower, but marking it any lower is arbitrary."
"The actual argument is that you're wrong, plainly and simply. It's taking 20 minutes. Or more, really, but I admit it's arbitrary to go lower, even though it would not be arbitrary to recognize that the value is certainly even lower"
And unironically about 20+ arguments directly hinging on that fact.
This whole time you've been arguing the cloud dispersal toward the start, not only because you directly said as much, multiple times, but the 20m timeframe being is the 2633.584ms speed.
The final horizon clear wouldn't be be that egregious, the whole problem is your dismissal, conjecture (timeskips, wording intrpretation, etc), and affirmation it MUST have been 20m+, which was contradicted and inconsistent within the the very scene. You argue this because physics and visuals, yet now say use the final speed, even though the final speed is quicker than the 20m speed? This contradicts the physics argument. Your arguments aren't consistent with themselves.
I would not mind using the final known speed, as an alternative, as that would be the speed most of the clouds got pushed at, if we HAD to pick a visual speed instead of just acknowleding it's all over and to go with the final timeframe. This isn't what you've proposed though.
Being "reasonable" and actually being the case, aren't mutual inherently. One can say a lot of things and have it be "reasonable" on paper. But, here as it ISN'T reasonable, nor what actually occured.
"Plausible", isn't "is". A lot of the arguments presented are "maybes", not "is". The fact almost, if not every, single one doesn't check out with the context and what we know for fact, makes those maybes, lean more toward "isn't" as opposed to "is".
And it strictly is the deciding factor, your arguments hinge on drastic time cuts. The alleged time cuts decide what is and isn't used. It unironically decides the feat.
We know there isn't timejumps, the audio, characters yapping, and literally just where they are, all actively shoot that down. There's not much to say, you'd have a point, maybe, if ALL those weren't the case, but they are, and thus, cinematic timing simply isn't applicable, and thus, not open for argumentation.
I'm not gonna hold this against you, you don't seem to actually be aware of some of the context as seen below (Wario being on the tree island is a pretty huge gap in knowledge given that's been half the crux of the argument), or maybe I should hold it against you because it's on you to understand all the details at play before arguing it, whatever the case, I don't particularly care.
As an aside, "likely" isn't "is" as above. You need solid evidence to suggest your "likely" is actually the case and thus should be used in determining the feat. As it stands a lot of your suggestions contradict context, what's actually being shown, and in some cases go against your own stances.
The fact, that the globe also seems to be completely cleared of any and all clouds seconds after that, essentially confirms it anyway if your new argument is he just up and left right away.
You are, in fact contesting it though? You've been arguing time jumps all throughout, specifically there even. Whether or not you see it as constructive, doesn't matter, it's relevant to your own arguments. If you conceede it's seconds later, the statement is substantial as clarification. The fact you're now suggesting he leaves right away, which is fair, he wouldn't stick around, that just contradicts your claims even further because spending an excessive amount of time looking at the globe, I do not see the clouds anymore on it in the places they should be, and were before.
Which is relevant, we know the clouds part in real time on the globe 1:1 with how they're acting at the moment.
Do you REALLY think the intent here was for them NOT to mean what she said? Why? What's the point? What reason do the writers have to make the statement hyperbolic, out of ignorance, not literal, or any other discrepent term? Why shouldn't we take it at face value? The only reason you have, is "physics" and "initial speed" tying into those physics, but you below in this very post contradict that very point itself.
You're now actively arguing what she says ISN'T what is meant to be conveyed or the full truth.
This is a non-argument.
Every word, at that point, should be taken 1:1 with how they say it.
It's meant to be taken at direct face value, precisely because literal baby toddlers gonna be playing it.
They're not gonna have characters say stuff but only have it be partially true or nuance to it. That's just confusing to the lil babs.
But nonetheless, you're giving arguments for why it'd give a high level of exactitude. You wanna be exact with children, not vague.
There's blatant visuals followed by a concrete statement, arguing it is just kinda weird tbh.
The lil ***** and cap, are not with Wario, the Shake King, the money bag and the princess. They are on the beach, but Wario and where the feat happened is not.
You're actively showcasing you don't even know where some of these characters even are.
Wario and the princess, who delivers that line, is on the island with him. He has a straight shot to there. In the 25 seconds or so cloud cutscene, he would have had enough time to go back to that room with her in it. He WOULD have done so as he legit doesn't give a shit about anyone there and wants the money bag with unlimited coins.
You are now back to arguing there's a "likely realistic timegap", I'm going to ignore that's preceeded by "likely" not "is", but when the only timegap shown, the cloud scene, is beyond enough time for Wario to just walk back there, that doesn't check out.
Hell the final boss even CROSSES INTO that very room with her. They're all in the same place. As long as Wario is in that area, any relevant passing of time beyond the cloud scene (which mind you, is the same cutscene), is the only time that would have passed.
Also why are you asking me where they are? Have you been arguing this whole time without knowing where each character is in relation to each other? If you aren't sure, why not ask before affirming it must be a certain way and propose arguments that contradict or go against the placements?
Also, no? What. Idk what tasks you doing but I can think of thousands that wouldn't, especially not tasks equilavent to going from Point B to Point B.
We have no reason to believe time has passed beyond faulty cloud speed you yourself have already admitted to fluctuating.
It is objectively incorrect to assume, in your own words, "20 minutes" have passed for Wario to go from Point A to Point B as he was already at Point B to begin with.
This is one such case. And due to this lack of knowledge, you make objectively faulty premises or proposals, such as timeskips. This isn't making assumptions, it's simply missing context, and then making a claim that goes against the context at hand. This doesn't work. This is ignorance, not in an a demeaning way, but by literal definition of not having all the relevant info within this topic.
We get a cutscene dedicated to showing the clouds disperse. It ends on a drawn out shot of the clouds completely gone. It is followed by a statement saying the peace has been restored (this is past tense) to the WHOLE dimension (Whole indicates it isn't just there).
This, despite your claims, is not an ongoing thing. It's past tense so it already happened, and if it was ongoing it wouldn't be the whole dimension. I mentioned variables above they could have said instead, but they didn't, they said this, as such, we'd have to discredit it somehow, just assume that isn't what she actually meant.
But why? Because the timeframe ain't realistic given the fluctuating speeds? (This is specifically odd because some of the speeds it peaks at, would actually be around there).
But below you recognize that the cloud speed DOES fluctuate, and even speeds up, so that isn't an argument anymore.
And yes, peace, the clouds were kinda a HUGE deal, some places where actively hell because of them.
You wouldn't say peace has ben restored everywhere if some places still gonna be a hellzone for like, idk, 15 minutes? Just say it's being returned, or will soon be, or whatever, you get the point instead.
It is evidence, you're making extra assumptions and interpreting it in a kind of weird way to say it's not.
In order for there to be a timeskip, he can't be there. He is, thus there's no time skip.
If you know that isn't the case, having some of your arguments hinge on "physics", and thus slowdown would be realistic, not speed up, or this or that, doesn't work.
It isn't like a few percent, or even tens of percent, it's actually drastic, tier changing even.
The characters are outright yapping, cheering, this lasts between one of your alleged timecuts.
If, there was an actual jump in time, they could have stopped it, cut it, etc. There isn't. It is simply a zoom out wide shot, happening directly after the previous instance, as they cheer.
There isn't an argument here, disagreeing doesn't make it true. Of course it isn't an uncommon thing, but it is uncommon for time skips to do that. What am I supposed to say? You can't just shove a time skip whenever the scene contradicts the stance dude.
Or it was before the "informal warning" (Excuse me what?). Now I'm just confused.
Honestly feels like instigating. It's unwarranted, but whatever.
And also backpedaling, you said 20 minutes. Why the sudden shift? Why the second one? Why not the first? Why not the third? This is arbitrary. The second sped up one, contradicts the thing you've been arguing this whole time anyway. It also contradicts the notion of half your arguments because they only work if it DIDN'T speed up, at all. The fact you acknowledge it by saying "the sped up one", invalidates half of what you've been suggesting.
Talk about unwarranted.
Anyway, to go about why speeds fucky.
Cloud thickness from around that line is 3000m apparently, idk I'm just copying the current pixel scaling.
86px = 3000m~
48px = 1674.4186046511627595457m~
Overlapped first and final frame of that scene, ****** with opacity.
This happened over 2 seconds and 29 frame. And thus a speed of about 564.41mps.
This would mean it'd take 1.48 hours for the feat to occur. Which, is hilariously unrealistic based on the info we have, Wario did not stick around that long, it did not take him that long to go back.
But wait,
Panel height 810px.
Object size = 37.632380952380952596.
3000*810/(86*2*tan(70deg/2)) = 20176.7422m.
Is the general distance, give or take, kinda half assed that but close enough, so about 20km between there and that island. This would mean, being generous here, it'd actually be longer, it'd have taken about 35 seconds to reach the island at the speed it was going, but that is demonstrably not the case nor what happened. 35 seconds might not seem like much, but like, it not seeming like much doesn't change the fact it didn't happen.
funny epilepsy warning, the clouds spontaneously cover that distance in a literal frame. In real time mind you.
That's, 1/30th of a second, 20km in that instance, or about 605302.266mps. That'd give us a timeframe of 4.97 seconds for the whole feat, that is evidently not the case, but that doesn't change the fact it still covered said disance in that time and thus had that speed for however long.
Which as an fyi, I'm not arguing the 2633.584 speed here. It doesn't actually work to begin with. The actual scene shows the clouds moving at the 500mps after the beam, then it cuts to the captain and clouds already behind her and parting further. Which is to say it didn't cover those 20km~ in that alleged 9 seconds. We see it start at about 16kms, slow down drastically to about 500mps, and then is suddenly where they are. Ignoring this means the clouds sped up regardless (They were parting at about 500mps), rendering the suggested proposal faulty and physics yap, but, it means there doesn't actually exist a 9 second timeframe for them to cover that 20km, it happens instantly almost, even if one argues it was a jump cut in time, that still invalidates 9 seconds. At best you'd argue the speed shown as it passes overhead.
Ok but for arguments sake, let's ignore the funny big number, I'm sure you'd call it a cinematic cut anyhow, but regardless 2633mps doesn't actually exist.
We see the clouds part behind the lil ***** and the captain, notice how the speed at which they disperse is still completely different from the initial parting or the following part at 500mps? In fact being quite a bit quicker than 500mps, isn't that odd. Why are they, on screen, visibly, moving at a quicker speed than they were seconds ago?
For reference instance 1 is 1.76 seconds, instance 2 is 1.73 seconds. The clouds covered a relevant distance, in less than 2 seconds, at a blatantly different rate compared to initial, slowdown and even subsequent instance.
Ok but, ignore even THAT
From the tip of the clouds in the frame (look in the corner, you can like barely see it still but it there), to the wideview, is 1.23 seconds.
We KNOW there isn't a timeskip in here, as the merfs cheering drags on between both uninterrupted.
Here's some very rough scaling, just moreso for proof of concept, it's a certified close enough.
Mind you this is an extreme lowend, the beach is exponentially larger than this too.
Anyway, yap aside, this gives us a horizon distance in the final shot of 80km. Given we know, at MINIMUM, it cleared out between the merf cheering and the, well, the view itself, which is only 1.23 seconds (lowballing, could have easily cut a few frames off),
That would give us a Horizon distance of 80.22km, which given it cleared in 1.23 seconds at worst, would be about 65.21kms, or 65219mps.
Which, would be a timeframe of 46.13 seconds. Literally lower than the minute presumed, exponentially lower than your numerous claims of 20m+ based on the, unfortunately, non-existent 2000mps, and not far off from the evident intent of the scene which is only 27 seconds and 18 frames.
It's also, despite the multiple claims of the fluctuating being minimal, extremely drastic.
The speed starts off
16283.296 m/s (Initial parting)
Drops to 564.41m/s (Clouds moving in the distance)
Jumps to 605302.266m/s (Jumps to right above them from 20km away).
Slows back down to, idk, just gonna eyeball it, ive done looked over enough shit but say like 3000mps? Like evidently it's covering a distance thicker than itself in that timeframe, good enough. Also important to note, due to the upward facing angle, the clouds at the end of this, are over the island still, not past it. Which is pretty important when factoring in the final horizon speed.
Then jumps back up to 65219mps as it goes from over the island, to a high horizon shot being completely clear in less than 2 seconds (This, would be the speed we'd use fyi if we ignore the inconstent visuals, as it happened last, and thus the speed the majority would be presumed pushed at).
To put that into numbers.
Between 16283.296 and 564.41: It got 28.85× slower.
Between 564.41 and 605302.266: It got 1072.45× quicker.
Between 605302.266 and 3000~: 201.77× slower.
Between 3000 and 65219: 21.74× quicker.
Or if we ignore the 600k one for the **** of it.
Between 16283.296 and 564.41: 28.85× slower.
Between 564.41 and 3000~: 5.32× quicker.
Between 3000 and 65219: 21.74× quicker.
With the largest gap being 115.55× (between 65219 and 564.41).
With it somehow consistently picking UP in speed after the initial burst.
You've already conceeded it fluctuates. But handwaved it off being minor, that shit is NOT minor my dude. Obviously I'm kind of half assing it here, but the numbers ain't that far off.
It's drastic. You can't even argue the funny physics thing because it gets quicker over time, not slower, unless you want that random spike I'm going to presume you'll argue as cinematic timing (And if not, well, my bad then), in which it literally ups and down and the highest point is insane.
Regardless, your argument, the very premise doesn't work.
Worse case scenario, we use the final speed which is ironically the quickest (Meaning all the arguments about slow down, physics, timeskips, etc, were kind of meaningless).
So, tldr.
1. Active admittance of fluctuating speeds.
2. Active admittance that the Wario scene likely isn't a time skip.
3. To use the horizon clear view speed (Would literally be sub-minute anyway?).
4. Aserting weird time cuts, handwaving of character placements, or taking a statement not at face value with no reason beyond the faulty point 1.
5. Given the admittance of speeding up clouds, and other such facets rendering several points invalid, it discredits the other points as well as they now lack corroboration.
I don't see why this should be continued any longer, But I suppose others can judge. Kinda why I even replied to begin with, less to change your stance, and more for others to weigh in.
Besides everything. I'm never wrong ong. Give a warning when it's warranted, framing a non-justified warning as "an informal warning", is still a warning and uncalled for.
Now, to propose what I think should be done, ignoring I have but to state it again.
The only legitimate methods I can see to get around the inconsistent fluctations, is to use the final speed of about 60kms (would need to be calced better though, don't use the yap in this post it's super rough), personally I'm unsure because the statement still exists, or to just go with the obvious 27 second time frame for the whole scene as we know by the end of it it's gone because they actively make it a point to show it's gone, say it's gone, and the globe not even 10 seconds later is cleared up too.
(This is bad, waste of time, I wanna become Old Snake).
I'm also redoing it because I think I overextended the line by 1-2 pixels, causing it to be about 0.4% larger than it should on the outside
Don't argue semantics. You know what I meant, and in this context they're the same.
They're expanding outward from a center point.
Actually, maybe it is? We see clouds shift in chunks on the globe earlier in game, it's probably a bit of both.
Also, it is being pushed, kinda why the KE formula is used. We also see numerous times throughout the game the clouds parting overland masses with the clouds, well, being pushed? If it's anything like the constant precedence... I'm not sure why the semantics is being used here, but it isn't even inherently wrong anyhow. Wouldn't effect the calc either way though.
That's how this works. If one says the sky is red, so calc bad. It's on whoever to prove as such.
Complaints have to actually check out.
You're dedicated to evalution, but multiple users who have that same role, disagree.
Your word doesn't supercede numerous other's who also have that role. Trying to argue as such, or, ironically, lacktherof, is a what gets this place a bad rep. The claims need to be founded or check out, yours, do not.
Not if numerous CGM's disagree, at that point it is a point of debate.
Being a funny color name doesn't give you free reign to yap against majority.
Doesn't work, they could have and would have worded it differently.
You're interpreting a statement not open to it.
Who decides what is and what isn't little time? It's relative to the context.
Ignoring the fact you're arguing 20m still, which goes against your later claim of saying Wario's placement doesn't matter (It does to this point, in fact it's the crux of it), or the scene is seconds later (While arguing it's a cut), among other things (Like him leaving immediately), all shoot down the timeframe you're proposing.
It isn't even consistent with your LATER suggested speed of the final horizon velocity.
20 minutes is little time for some things, but not here. Context is key.
Not even what they say. If someone said the whole world is normal again or at peace or whatever in that context, they'd be a goddman liar. Why WW2 even, that's a lil ****** up.
I'm not humoring this.
It being realistic doesn't matter if that's the timeframe given.
Wario sitting on his ass for 20 minutes isn't realistic
The clouds acting like they do, ain't either.
Like not much to say beyond it is how it is, ain't my fault, but it is the way it is.
As we will see below, you're objectively wrong here, I do not know what to say to this beyond, well nothing really, you can see yourself this is flimsy and faulty, if only because you've conceeded as such.
They're not minor, and it doesn't matter if they're minor even if they were, if it fluctuates at all, especially inverse (as in, it picks up in velocity), we have a issue with your proposal.
As below. And no, it very much is. Even the "fair" examples, have a gap over 100x. I'd call that exponential.
Unless we just have different definitions of exponential or your defintion is relegated to absolute insane numbers (Though for me, it's relative to the base), I don't think it's a strong word, I think it describes it pretty aptly.
I am not, it's like, LITERALLY what happened if we take visuals strictly speaking.
Don't say dishonest, as if I didn't just waste way to much time frame by framing that shit and counting the corners of each frame.
Or well, that's what I would but I was looking at the wrong frame rate (I was working in a higher frame rate in editing and plopped the 30fps footage into there, I've since double checked everything though so this isn't applicable for this post), so it's more like 600-700kms, but, it doesn't actually matter because it's still ridiculous. The point stands, arguably even better now, there's still a difference of tens to hundreds of times at points.
Though to call me dishonest isn't arguing in good faith though, I pray I don't need to call you out on that. Where calling me dishonest is a blatant accusation, one that doesn't even hold up. One can just check if need be, it isn't like I'm not literally posting the instances in albums.
The multiple instances of insinutating contention is based on one's inability to comprehend basic stuff like sizes or object placement, and what not, is what I fnd condescending, I highlighted that when I initially said as much.
"The Calc is calculating a cloud being gone over continents. A very very large area. I recognize it is hard to imagine that."
Like what is this? Why is your argument just essentially "you can't recognize it"? That's condescending.
I'm not even doing that with you, I ASSUME you have those capabilities, I'm just arguing it makes no sense to go with your proposals BASED on said things. I'm not assuming you just straight can't comprehend big thing or placements.
"I encourage you to look closely, it's a particularly vibrant pink, right about the mouth of Bowser's castle. It is three pixels long, because that is 40 kilometers on this map."
Like yep, we know how big the area in the calc is, and? Why word it like so anyway? Koops ain't in the game fyi but that's not relevant.
"This is so obviously, painfully wrong, that it is bizarre that it is being defended as though it wasn't. I will engage with the above post, but given that this cannot be interpreted as reasonable under any definition, I don't think it's really worth it to continue debate around this as though a point is had. It is not my intent to be rude, mind, it's plausible people don't really recognize the full error of their ways until it is presented visually."
Like what is this? Knock it off, even I, with all my hardass abrassivity, don't think people fail to recognize "the full error of their ways until it is presented visually." At worst I just assume goonery, at best they might believe what they say and think their own has more merit and thus agree to disagree. I don't treat them like the only reason they disagree is because they somehow can't comprehend basic values. The fact this was even uttered is baffling to me, ever think maybe people just don't agree? Whether or not it's your intent doesn't matter, that IS pretty rude.
Even when I go on a tangent explaining shit, it's moreso to convey it to others, or for my own sake. Like as we see below, me going over the cloud speeds, that isn't me going over it because I just assume you don't know what the hell you're talking about. It's me going over it because you made a claim "minor fluctuation", and I'm going to showcase that isn't the case, it isn't minor.
If people said "or the whole area ain't that big" or whatever, showcasing why it's big and acting like you've been would be a different, it'd be in response to something, but this was, never, at any point, a point of contention. As it stands it's an unjustified condenscending remark.
Doubling down with that can only really be taken as "I'm right, those who don't agree are in the wrong, only reason they might not agree is because they just haven't been shown as such visually", is wild.
Your constant "maybe you don't realize how big thing is so-" or "object permeance", or this and that, it implicates you think the opposition to your claims simply just doesn't "get it", they don't "comprehend" it so surely that's why they're arguing with you.
That isn't the case, at all, I even said as much. It's condescending.
Everyone here knows how big a continent is. Everyone here has basic object permeance. That isn't why you're being contested. Also don't much appreciate the offhand remark about lazy evaluations. Uncalled for.
I don't care if you don't think it isn't condescending, I'm sure we both know it doesn't matter what one's self thinks in regards to how they talk, word stuff, yadda yadda, I'm telling you don't. Don't like it.
You might not think so, but what you think doesn't matter, what matters is how others interpret it, you know that's how it works, you also know the whole "mods expected better" yap. The fact you somehow 180 this back on me being condescending when I've been actively replying to you in a civil manner, is asinine.
I've even made sure to double over and trim out "*****" and what not to appease the masses here.
I even had dudes double check this shit before posting.
But, if something I've said, specifically, you took offense at, cool, you could point it out and I'd make an attempt to rectify if only so I could get you people off my ass, but either way, two wrongs don't make a right.
Yeah I'm gonna not do that, that comparison is absolutely wild. It's a false equilavence, an extreme one, one we know isn't true anyway, and WHY WW2 anyway.
It is. You keep arguing and make assumptions that don't actually align with what is said, or adding in extra interpretation that actively goes AGAINST what we see. Like ignoring Occam's Razor do be a thing, I get it isn't always the best solution, but that isn't the case here.
We're supposed to not just guess or add in extra presumptions Bambu, when every argument made IS an assumption or trying to interpret stuff that isn't actually viable for interpretation, we have a problem.
The things I've presented.
1. The cloud speed is widly inconsistent, and even speeds up (Fact).
2. Wario is in the same place as the immediate following scene (Fact).
3. Audio isn't cut, and moreover continues between zoom out (Fact).
4. The variance in cloud speed is notably large (Fact).
5. The 20m timeframe gets contradicted due the speed at which it was going, actively shifted, and realtime cutscene happen in a quicker time window (Fact).
6. A character says a string of words said in past tense that emphasized the whole world (Fact).
7. This statement is immediately after the cloud cutscene (Fact).
Other stuff probably idk I have a headache and multitasking, but at no point have I used headcanon, it's either been objective, or rooted in context.
Yes, and we can also see how long it takes over a larger area. It actively gets quicker. Now does that make sense? Idk not really, but it happened, not much I can do about it. 20m speed is not consistent throughout, nor is the final speed 20m.
Incorrect. They say the whole dimension, yet, according to you, it is ongoing, it hasn't happened yet.
She would not have specified the whole dimension. She could have used future tense wording, like "will soon return to normal", "will return to normal", "will soon be normal", "returning to normal", etc. She could have said something like "Peace is returning to the shake dimension", or any other million variants that work fine to align with your claims.
That isn't the case, that isn't what is said. She words it present tense, actually, past tense,. By the time she says it, it has already happened as that's what that string of words entails and conveys.
Restored (Past tense), peace to the whole shake dimension (clarifies it isn't localized, but it's already occured over the whole world).
What they say does matter, why do you think they're saying it.
It's exposition, it informs us, the viewers, what happened, how it happened, or whatever. When a character says something, it's deliberate. They aren't real mfs who can trip over words, say something a slight bit off what they meant, etc.
If she says it that way, the intent is obviously "Yes the whole dimension has been returned to normal". Yet under your arguments it hasn't, that one level would still be living hell because it hasn't been fixed yet and won't be for like, 19 minutes after they claim as such.
Also I'm pretty sure they ARE reality warpers but that's beside the point.
Not an argument, rebuttal, whatever it might be.
One can't just say "there's cinematic timing", that implicates a cut in time. Yet there isn't one.
If there isn't a cut, then no cinematic timing is at play. You even acknowledge that some points don't have a cut in time below like the Wario one, all while arguing there is. To only argue timeskips in places we know there isn't one either, due to audio cues and just common sense, yet there would NEED to be in, specifically the second final shift, for your lower velocity speed to be viable, yet it's that scene we can outright confirm no such skip exists (it's just a zoomout, we can even hear them still).
The goal isn't to explain what "cinematic timing is", it's to prove it's happening here, which it isn't.
Whether or not you accept it, you're not the only staff here.
It isn't twisting, that is simply what is shown. You want visual evidence, that is the visuals.
In fact, but I was kinda arguing otherwise anyway, the visuals seem all over, so just take the time in which we know it's gone, as opposed to twisting, cherry picking, whatever off visuals.
This option, by your own stance, has been rejected it would seem. Unfortunate. You do not want to do this, so, unfortunately, the alternative isn't the faulty 20m, but rather last known velocity as that would be what the majority of the clouds dispersed at.
Yet this speed goes against your proposals such as the 20m yap. Hence, issues, hence this very argument.
I hate to be this dude, but actively wanting to imploy faulty cinematic timing that doesn't exist there, use a faulty initial speed that is contradicted 5 times after, which yes, that has been your argument for the most part as that's the 20m timeframe velocity, ignore character placement while arguing physics and clouds and what not, and just a whole slew of other things and contrivences that need to be the case for the proposals to check out.
I'm not sure what the intent here is, whether it's intentional or not, I don't care, but that's what's happening with this line of reasoning.
Well, you're on a debate forum, in a topic relating to this discussion, with ample disagreement from all sides. I very much don't want to either. Five fucktrillion things I'd much rather do. There's gonna BE five fucktrillion things I'm gonna do.
It literally IS a debate, several CGM's disagree with your line of reasoning.
If we want to go with your claims, they need to be sorted out first and deemed viable.
You're not trying to convince me, but rather, convince everyone else. Much like I've given up trying to convince you, and instead, convince everyone else.
This is active admission, conceeding of the point even.
The speed you're proposing is contradicted. You realize it does fluctuate, so arguing it further doesn't work.
And, while you might think it's minor, it isn't, you disagree that it's big doesn't change that it is. Unless we just have very different definitions of what "minor" entails, I wouldn't say dozens to hundreds of times is that.
At worst it's almost a magnitude, that isn't something you can just handwave.
I agree with you here, they likely didn't give a shit, why would they? It's, outside of this niche nerdy af topic, so trivial most wouldn't even recognize it. But that goes both ways, do you think the initial speed is any more correct over the final speed? Or any others? No, it's simply arbitrarily cherry picking. Of course you argue physics, I get that, but that doesn't even work either, due to how up and down it goes and physics isn't changing the speeds it hits so....
Given you actively acknowledge this, the premise of the argument falls apart, adding onto that, it also shoots down all arguments hinging on "physics" and "slowdown", given it gets quicker, not slower.
Not withstanding this has no bearing on her statement and intent of the scene anyhow. The fact this is the point you say is "realistic" of mine, is kind of a red flag in and of itself. What should matter, is if it's actually the case, not if it's realistic.
It objectively doesn't.
You're asking us to cherry pick a faulty contradictory speed, assume numerous cinematic cuts in a real time scene with one such cut being especially unrealistically long given the character's at play and where they are, and to ignore a explicit statement.
And, well, you've already left, but explaining yourself is kind of important, especially if other people have to judge. Hence this very reply.
Ok so you agree that said scene happens immediately after? At which point, there is no reason to discredit the scene like you've been doing, and will continue to do so for the rest of this post.
That's something that goes against your argument, the globe is clear of clouds when he exits? If he exited right away, which he can, that kinda actively supports my point. It's a self-defeating argument.
What are you talking about? Bolding is for emphasis. Same with capitilization on certain words.
Are you talking about what you said, that I said was condescening? No. I don't even recall if you bolded anything, I'm not gonna crucify a dude for using the built-in text options or yapping in caps to draw attention or emphasis.
Sweet summer child.
It moving at, idk, 3km a sec (it at least covered it's own thickness within that 1.2 seconds~, just eyeballing it though, if you wanna calc it exactly be my guest).
Is not the same as it clearing the horizon in the 1.23 seconds (like 80km).
That is not equal, that is ludicrously disproportionate.
It quite literally isn't. You even ADMIT as much in this very post. This isn't a topic of contention, it literally is not the exact same.
That's not true, there's multiple, but not withstanding that, the final horizon distance is huge, the final known speed, is not the speed you've been arguing for.
Also, this is just straight up wrong.
"But using that approximate timeframe to justify continentally sized areas seems insane, especially when as you said, we can determine how long it would take, based on how fast it was going from the beginning bit we see."
"I stand by just using the speed derived from the initial clearing period and then recognizing the actual value would be lower, but marking it any lower is arbitrary."
"The actual argument is that you're wrong, plainly and simply. It's taking 20 minutes. Or more, really, but I admit it's arbitrary to go lower, even though it would not be arbitrary to recognize that the value is certainly even lower"
And unironically about 20+ arguments directly hinging on that fact.
This whole time you've been arguing the cloud dispersal toward the start, not only because you directly said as much, multiple times, but the 20m timeframe being is the 2633.584ms speed.
The final horizon clear wouldn't be be that egregious, the whole problem is your dismissal, conjecture (timeskips, wording intrpretation, etc), and affirmation it MUST have been 20m+, which was contradicted and inconsistent within the the very scene. You argue this because physics and visuals, yet now say use the final speed, even though the final speed is quicker than the 20m speed? This contradicts the physics argument. Your arguments aren't consistent with themselves.
I would not mind using the final known speed, as an alternative, as that would be the speed most of the clouds got pushed at, if we HAD to pick a visual speed instead of just acknowleding it's all over and to go with the final timeframe. This isn't what you've proposed though.
It isn't, the jumps you're suggesting are unrealistic. 20 minutes is asinine for the context at play, where they're located, and who's involved.
Being "reasonable" and actually being the case, aren't mutual inherently. One can say a lot of things and have it be "reasonable" on paper. But, here as it ISN'T reasonable, nor what actually occured.
Happening in real time, we know this because at points we can even HEAR the characters yap without a cut. We know this because, coincidentally, object permeance, i.e, we know where Wario and others would be located within relation to each other. It being a major event, has absolutely zero bearing on if there's jump cuts. And the scene changing angles or locations, isn't inherently a jump cut in time, it's just changing perspectives.
Unfortunately, you're arguing drastic jump cuts in time. This needs to be proven, and have it be consistent within the context of the scene.
"Plausible", isn't "is". A lot of the arguments presented are "maybes", not "is". The fact almost, if not every, single one doesn't check out with the context and what we know for fact, makes those maybes, lean more toward "isn't" as opposed to "is".
And it strictly is the deciding factor, your arguments hinge on drastic time cuts. The alleged time cuts decide what is and isn't used. It unironically decides the feat.
Unfortunate as this chunk of text might be, it isn't obvious.
We know there isn't timejumps, the audio, characters yapping, and literally just where they are, all actively shoot that down. There's not much to say, you'd have a point, maybe, if ALL those weren't the case, but they are, and thus, cinematic timing simply isn't applicable, and thus, not open for argumentation.
I'm not gonna hold this against you, you don't seem to actually be aware of some of the context as seen below (Wario being on the tree island is a pretty huge gap in knowledge given that's been half the crux of the argument), or maybe I should hold it against you because it's on you to understand all the details at play before arguing it, whatever the case, I don't particularly care.
As an aside, "likely" isn't "is" as above. You need solid evidence to suggest your "likely" is actually the case and thus should be used in determining the feat. As it stands a lot of your suggestions contradict context, what's actually being shown, and in some cases go against your own stances.
Because we're given a statement the whole dimension is cool again, not even 10 seconds after the cloud scene. If, you acknowledge there's no time skip in that instance, well, then the cloud is gone?
The fact, that the globe also seems to be completely cleared of any and all clouds seconds after that, essentially confirms it anyway if your new argument is he just up and left right away.
You are, in fact contesting it though? You've been arguing time jumps all throughout, specifically there even. Whether or not you see it as constructive, doesn't matter, it's relevant to your own arguments. If you conceede it's seconds later, the statement is substantial as clarification. The fact you're now suggesting he leaves right away, which is fair, he wouldn't stick around, that just contradicts your claims even further because spending an excessive amount of time looking at the globe, I do not see the clouds anymore on it in the places they should be, and were before.
Which is relevant, we know the clouds part in real time on the globe 1:1 with how they're acting at the moment.
No, it's good writing when you're dropping exposition. You don't want it to be vague, or open to interpretation, if you do, there's words or ways to convey that. You don't say something with strict factual past to present tence wording otherwise.
Do you REALLY think the intent here was for them NOT to mean what she said? Why? What's the point? What reason do the writers have to make the statement hyperbolic, out of ignorance, not literal, or any other discrepent term? Why shouldn't we take it at face value? The only reason you have, is "physics" and "initial speed" tying into those physics, but you below in this very post contradict that very point itself.
You're now actively arguing what she says ISN'T what is meant to be conveyed or the full truth.
This is a non-argument.
I'd argue the exact opposite, do you think a children's game is going to have the nuance in language you're suggesting? Hell no.
Every word, at that point, should be taken 1:1 with how they say it.
It's meant to be taken at direct face value, precisely because literal baby toddlers gonna be playing it.
They're not gonna have characters say stuff but only have it be partially true or nuance to it. That's just confusing to the lil babs.
Pokemon with it's hyper specific yap. As a deecnt example. Not like it matters, I don't care what the demographic is honestly, it is what it is.
But nonetheless, you're giving arguments for why it'd give a high level of exactitude. You wanna be exact with children, not vague.
There's blatant visuals followed by a concrete statement, arguing it is just kinda weird tbh.
Wario is with the chick. They fought on the island, Wario literally murdered the dude who exploded into the beam of light, there, we know so because that's where the beam originates, so they didn't leave there, and that is where the money bag and princess is.
The lil ***** and cap, are not with Wario, the Shake King, the money bag and the princess. They are on the beach, but Wario and where the feat happened is not.
You're actively showcasing you don't even know where some of these characters even are.
Wario and the princess, who delivers that line, is on the island with him. He has a straight shot to there. In the 25 seconds or so cloud cutscene, he would have had enough time to go back to that room with her in it. He WOULD have done so as he legit doesn't give a shit about anyone there and wants the money bag with unlimited coins.
You are now back to arguing there's a "likely realistic timegap", I'm going to ignore that's preceeded by "likely" not "is", but when the only timegap shown, the cloud scene, is beyond enough time for Wario to just walk back there, that doesn't check out.
Hell the final boss even CROSSES INTO that very room with her. They're all in the same place. As long as Wario is in that area, any relevant passing of time beyond the cloud scene (which mind you, is the same cutscene), is the only time that would have passed.
Also why are you asking me where they are? Have you been arguing this whole time without knowing where each character is in relation to each other? If you aren't sure, why not ask before affirming it must be a certain way and propose arguments that contradict or go against the placements?
Going a distance that'd take him like 10 seconds, is not 20 minutes.
Also, no? What. Idk what tasks you doing but I can think of thousands that wouldn't, especially not tasks equilavent to going from Point B to Point B.
I'm not latching onto 1 minute, I think 1 minute itself is ridiculous for the time jump.
We have no reason to believe time has passed beyond faulty cloud speed you yourself have already admitted to fluctuating.
It is objectively incorrect to assume, in your own words, "20 minutes" have passed for Wario to go from Point A to Point B as he was already at Point B to begin with.
At this point, it isn't that you're making assumptions. You're just talking out of ignorance, and I'm not saying that to be mean. Like actually, before any of you act like I'm Hitler or some shit, I'm not saying this to be rude, but more because you've, multiple times, this post actively outted yourself as not knowing where certain things are placed or certan contexts involving the scene.
This is one such case. And due to this lack of knowledge, you make objectively faulty premises or proposals, such as timeskips. This isn't making assumptions, it's simply missing context, and then making a claim that goes against the context at hand. This doesn't work. This is ignorance, not in an a demeaning way, but by literal definition of not having all the relevant info within this topic.
Wording. And honestly just common sense.
We get a cutscene dedicated to showing the clouds disperse. It ends on a drawn out shot of the clouds completely gone. It is followed by a statement saying the peace has been restored (this is past tense) to the WHOLE dimension (Whole indicates it isn't just there).
This, despite your claims, is not an ongoing thing. It's past tense so it already happened, and if it was ongoing it wouldn't be the whole dimension. I mentioned variables above they could have said instead, but they didn't, they said this, as such, we'd have to discredit it somehow, just assume that isn't what she actually meant.
But why? Because the timeframe ain't realistic given the fluctuating speeds? (This is specifically odd because some of the speeds it peaks at, would actually be around there).
But below you recognize that the cloud speed DOES fluctuate, and even speeds up, so that isn't an argument anymore.
And yes, peace, the clouds were kinda a HUGE deal, some places where actively hell because of them.
You wouldn't say peace has ben restored everywhere if some places still gonna be a hellzone for like, idk, 15 minutes? Just say it's being returned, or will soon be, or whatever, you get the point instead.
It is evidence, you're making extra assumptions and interpreting it in a kind of weird way to say it's not.
It actively is, you're arguing there's a timeskip, and just finished a few lines above arguing as such.
In order for there to be a timeskip, he can't be there. He is, thus there's no time skip.
Then you acknowledge the faulty premise of your argument.
If you know that isn't the case, having some of your arguments hinge on "physics", and thus slowdown would be realistic, not speed up, or this or that, doesn't work.
And yet that's what happens, like literally on screen. This isn't subject to debate, it JUST is.
It isn't like a few percent, or even tens of percent, it's actually drastic, tier changing even.
That isn't how this works. It's real time.
The characters are outright yapping, cheering, this lasts between one of your alleged timecuts.
If, there was an actual jump in time, they could have stopped it, cut it, etc. There isn't. It is simply a zoom out wide shot, happening directly after the previous instance, as they cheer.
There isn't an argument here, disagreeing doesn't make it true. Of course it isn't an uncommon thing, but it is uncommon for time skips to do that. What am I supposed to say? You can't just shove a time skip whenever the scene contradicts the stance dude.
Honestly I thought it was pretty chill. I still think it's pretty chill. Just saying "hey man that was condescending" ain't the convo being taken up to 11.
Or it was before the "informal warning" (Excuse me what?). Now I'm just confused.
Honestly feels like instigating. It's unwarranted, but whatever.
Why? That in itself is cherry picking.
And also backpedaling, you said 20 minutes. Why the sudden shift? Why the second one? Why not the first? Why not the third? This is arbitrary. The second sped up one, contradicts the thing you've been arguing this whole time anyway. It also contradicts the notion of half your arguments because they only work if it DIDN'T speed up, at all. The fact you acknowledge it by saying "the sped up one", invalidates half of what you've been suggesting.
Like it or not, several of your arguments hinge on what's being contested, the whole of it should be read.
That was me being nice. Like actually why the active instigation? Why the hypocrisy even. Why the past? You yourself has had many examples of undue behavior in the past too, but I don't just assume you're gonna start acting like you've done in the past on the fly?
Talk about unwarranted.
Anyway, to go about why speeds fucky.
Cloud thickness from around that line is 3000m apparently, idk I'm just copying the current pixel scaling.
86px = 3000m~
48px = 1674.4186046511627595457m~
Overlapped first and final frame of that scene, ****** with opacity.
This happened over 2 seconds and 29 frame. And thus a speed of about 564.41mps.
This would mean it'd take 1.48 hours for the feat to occur. Which, is hilariously unrealistic based on the info we have, Wario did not stick around that long, it did not take him that long to go back.
But wait,
Panel height 810px.
Object size = 37.632380952380952596.
3000*810/(86*2*tan(70deg/2)) = 20176.7422m.
Is the general distance, give or take, kinda half assed that but close enough, so about 20km between there and that island. This would mean, being generous here, it'd actually be longer, it'd have taken about 35 seconds to reach the island at the speed it was going, but that is demonstrably not the case nor what happened. 35 seconds might not seem like much, but like, it not seeming like much doesn't change the fact it didn't happen.
funny epilepsy warning, the clouds spontaneously cover that distance in a literal frame. In real time mind you.
That's, 1/30th of a second, 20km in that instance, or about 605302.266mps. That'd give us a timeframe of 4.97 seconds for the whole feat, that is evidently not the case, but that doesn't change the fact it still covered said disance in that time and thus had that speed for however long.
Which as an fyi, I'm not arguing the 2633.584 speed here. It doesn't actually work to begin with. The actual scene shows the clouds moving at the 500mps after the beam, then it cuts to the captain and clouds already behind her and parting further. Which is to say it didn't cover those 20km~ in that alleged 9 seconds. We see it start at about 16kms, slow down drastically to about 500mps, and then is suddenly where they are. Ignoring this means the clouds sped up regardless (They were parting at about 500mps), rendering the suggested proposal faulty and physics yap, but, it means there doesn't actually exist a 9 second timeframe for them to cover that 20km, it happens instantly almost, even if one argues it was a jump cut in time, that still invalidates 9 seconds. At best you'd argue the speed shown as it passes overhead.
Ok but for arguments sake, let's ignore the funny big number, I'm sure you'd call it a cinematic cut anyhow, but regardless 2633mps doesn't actually exist.
We see the clouds part behind the lil ***** and the captain, notice how the speed at which they disperse is still completely different from the initial parting or the following part at 500mps? In fact being quite a bit quicker than 500mps, isn't that odd. Why are they, on screen, visibly, moving at a quicker speed than they were seconds ago?
For reference instance 1 is 1.76 seconds, instance 2 is 1.73 seconds. The clouds covered a relevant distance, in less than 2 seconds, at a blatantly different rate compared to initial, slowdown and even subsequent instance.
Ok but, ignore even THAT
From the tip of the clouds in the frame (look in the corner, you can like barely see it still but it there), to the wideview, is 1.23 seconds.
We KNOW there isn't a timeskip in here, as the merfs cheering drags on between both uninterrupted.
Here's some very rough scaling, just moreso for proof of concept, it's a certified close enough.
Mind you this is an extreme lowend, the beach is exponentially larger than this too.
Anyway, yap aside, this gives us a horizon distance in the final shot of 80km. Given we know, at MINIMUM, it cleared out between the merf cheering and the, well, the view itself, which is only 1.23 seconds (lowballing, could have easily cut a few frames off),
That would give us a Horizon distance of 80.22km, which given it cleared in 1.23 seconds at worst, would be about 65.21kms, or 65219mps.
Which, would be a timeframe of 46.13 seconds. Literally lower than the minute presumed, exponentially lower than your numerous claims of 20m+ based on the, unfortunately, non-existent 2000mps, and not far off from the evident intent of the scene which is only 27 seconds and 18 frames.
It's also, despite the multiple claims of the fluctuating being minimal, extremely drastic.
The speed starts off
16283.296 m/s (Initial parting)
Drops to 564.41m/s (Clouds moving in the distance)
Jumps to 605302.266m/s (Jumps to right above them from 20km away).
Slows back down to, idk, just gonna eyeball it, ive done looked over enough shit but say like 3000mps? Like evidently it's covering a distance thicker than itself in that timeframe, good enough. Also important to note, due to the upward facing angle, the clouds at the end of this, are over the island still, not past it. Which is pretty important when factoring in the final horizon speed.
Then jumps back up to 65219mps as it goes from over the island, to a high horizon shot being completely clear in less than 2 seconds (This, would be the speed we'd use fyi if we ignore the inconstent visuals, as it happened last, and thus the speed the majority would be presumed pushed at).
To put that into numbers.
Between 16283.296 and 564.41: It got 28.85× slower.
Between 564.41 and 605302.266: It got 1072.45× quicker.
Between 605302.266 and 3000~: 201.77× slower.
Between 3000 and 65219: 21.74× quicker.
Or if we ignore the 600k one for the **** of it.
Between 16283.296 and 564.41: 28.85× slower.
Between 564.41 and 3000~: 5.32× quicker.
Between 3000 and 65219: 21.74× quicker.
With the largest gap being 115.55× (between 65219 and 564.41).
With it somehow consistently picking UP in speed after the initial burst.
You've already conceeded it fluctuates. But handwaved it off being minor, that shit is NOT minor my dude. Obviously I'm kind of half assing it here, but the numbers ain't that far off.
It's drastic. You can't even argue the funny physics thing because it gets quicker over time, not slower, unless you want that random spike I'm going to presume you'll argue as cinematic timing (And if not, well, my bad then), in which it literally ups and down and the highest point is insane.
Regardless, your argument, the very premise doesn't work.
Worse case scenario, we use the final speed which is ironically the quickest (Meaning all the arguments about slow down, physics, timeskips, etc, were kind of meaningless).
So, tldr.
1. Active admittance of fluctuating speeds.
2. Active admittance that the Wario scene likely isn't a time skip.
3. To use the horizon clear view speed (Would literally be sub-minute anyway?).
4. Aserting weird time cuts, handwaving of character placements, or taking a statement not at face value with no reason beyond the faulty point 1.
5. Given the admittance of speeding up clouds, and other such facets rendering several points invalid, it discredits the other points as well as they now lack corroboration.
I don't see why this should be continued any longer, But I suppose others can judge. Kinda why I even replied to begin with, less to change your stance, and more for others to weigh in.
Honestly feels like instigating to get me to start being rude but what do I know.
Besides everything. I'm never wrong ong. Give a warning when it's warranted, framing a non-justified warning as "an informal warning", is still a warning and uncalled for.
Now, to propose what I think should be done, ignoring I have but to state it again.
The only legitimate methods I can see to get around the inconsistent fluctations, is to use the final speed of about 60kms (would need to be calced better though, don't use the yap in this post it's super rough), personally I'm unsure because the statement still exists, or to just go with the obvious 27 second time frame for the whole scene as we know by the end of it it's gone because they actively make it a point to show it's gone, say it's gone, and the globe not even 10 seconds later is cleared up too.
- 17,799
- 27,882
Having already read this beefy response before it was sent here I'll say on the matter of the calc I do agree with chariot's stance here as its the most sensible and nothing hasn't really been disproven yet or rather the claim's bambu has made haven't been proven
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 23,082
- 22,988
The most significant counterpoints in my other post were just said "no" to. This is a strawman and it is blatant. It has been for awhile, I'm just not really fond of the fallacy vomiting that occurs sometimes. All are still free to their interpretations as people cannot be forcibly convinced, even if some elements of their basis for those beliefs are objectively incorrect.
I'm willing to wait a smidge longer on this front, regardless. If need be, a separate discussion thread might be made to goad discussion from staff. It may be that the size of this thread discourages that.
I'm willing to wait a smidge longer on this front, regardless. If need be, a separate discussion thread might be made to goad discussion from staff. It may be that the size of this thread discourages that.
- 16,645
- 14,663
Yes, because they're unfounded, or contradict what we know to be fact, or like, just words.
That isn't anyone's fault but your own. Like come on dude, you can't just SAY stuff and have it be that.
That isn't a strawman, don't frame it as such. I replied to literally everything you said, even when it was redundant to do so, contrary to you just going "I don't feel the need to elaborate/explain/etc" on numerous accounts. We are not the same.
As is yours. You don't get to just decide what is, or isn't correct. This is a democratic forum, you might, unfortunately, have more rights than some, but if people of equal rights veto yours, not much can be done about it. People disagree with you, end of.
Every relevant staff can read the from a certain point on. Everything that needed to be said, has already been said. Unless you want to overextend and make this exponentially more drawn out than need be, where we go back and forth for probably a week, maybe two, because if we haven't convinced each other yet, I doubt we will in the future, or however long it takes one of us to want to shoot themselves.
Now, others can read, judge, I do not care, I'm gonna like, go subject myself to counting a million pixels apparently and be obsessively particular about a 9-A+ calc, for something we already scale to 8-C because idk **** me ig.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 23,082
- 22,988
Out of respect for the thread's duration, and an actual want to get things done, I'm not going to continue the argument. I will say that Chariot has continuously attempted to just say "no" to a position, and denying anyone else the allowance to do so, while also applying misconstrued arguments to those positions. The whole tangent about Wario's position being relevant to the timeframe of the storm's end dispersal doesn't even make sense to begin with. This is part of the strawman issue at play here- but it seems unlikely to resolve without dozens of further walls of text, which in turn only exacerbate the issue of the thread's overall resolution.
I don't believe a staff thread to smooth this over would draw out discussion. I think 12 pages is deemed too much for some, and in this case it may be better to discuss it elsewhere. Still, for now I am willing to hold.
I don't believe a staff thread to smooth this over would draw out discussion. I think 12 pages is deemed too much for some, and in this case it may be better to discuss it elsewhere. Still, for now I am willing to hold.
- 16,645
- 14,663
Whatever happened to arguing in good faith? Whatever happened to non-accusations?
I replied to literally everything you said (except WW2 that is wild), each thing. Misconstruing your arguments, would be a fault on your end. I simply replied to what was said, if that isn't what you meant, that isn't my problem. The words say what they say. Especially given you at no less than 5 points simply refused to elaborate or explain.
That is only your fault, nobody else's, do not blame me for your shortcomings.
I say no to arguments that do not check out, contradict themselves, don't actually align with the source material and so on and so forth. I explain why I'm saying no. I do not just say "no". I very much don't appreciate that. Knock it off.
His position is relevant to the insinuation of a jump cut, which has been a topic of your arguments, I can quote where you said as much multiple times if need be.
This has been explained in excessive detail.
If he is there, a jump in time, cinematic timing, as one would call it. Is unfounded, and actively contradictory to the context.
Lad, me and you both know any staff that actually care, can and would read the less than 1 page of back and forth. 90% of the thread, doesn't need to be read. If they haven't commented, they just do not care to begin with or want to be involved.
The relevant posts have been linked. Relegating a simple feat discussion to staff only, is asinine, this ain't no Boros, DBZ, whatever slop. Simply being contested doesn't mean the next step is staff only.
It does not need to be done, especially when everyone who's involved, bar you, isn't staff, except idk maybe Dale and Clover? Like let's not forget they're here, along with a few others who have been looking this over and simply haven't commented yet because they were waiting.
You contacted CGM's, I will contact some as well, notwithstanding at least 5 have been looking this over already.
Everything past this point is what should be read.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 23,082
- 22,988
I am not arguing, and the above is in good faith. I don't think I ever ordered people to not make accusations. Baseless accusations are bad, but that is not baseless. You have done those things, verifiably.
No we do not lol (because it seems necessary: this is funny, it is not laughing at you or pulling millenial "lol" code bullshit). Staff are busy and inconsistent, not considering the time of year this thread is being pursued in (which, for some at least, presumably renders them busier).
It isn't asinine if it produces results. 12 pages is too long for the discussion of a small handful of feats.
It might need to be done. I'm uncertain as of now. If the CGMs won't reply, I'll contact non-CGMs, since really those are the voices that decide the matter. If all fails, I relegate it to a staff discussion, probably after the holidays.
@DontTalkDT @LephyrTheRevanchist @Crabwhale @GarrixianXD @Qawsedf234
Depending on answers, that may be sufficient.
- 16,645
- 14,663
As have you yet here we are. Blatant accusations, calling me deliberately dishonest even. Knock it off. You're better than that are you not? Mods held to higher expectations?
Speak for yourself then, it isn't that complex. Most who care, already have.
Excuse me? It's one page for 1 feat. The other topics have already been explored in depth. You're framing this completely wrong and making it seem exponentially larger than it actually is.
Absolute insanity. On a calc-related topic no less. You're not even right here, CGM's decide calc related matters. Funny how the only point of contention is against you lad.
We're discussing a calc-related matter. Do not try to undermine the opposition in which CGM's are involved.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 23,082
- 22,988
All users are held to higher expectations. It is the expectation of the staff to maintain civility and rightness. You are actively violating both. Looking back on the thread, you have been doing so since last month to other users, who openly recognized your aggression. There have been times of calm, but you're now reaching those same boiling points.
This is now a formal warning for disruptive behavior. I will make note of it in the RVRT in a bit. Do tone it down, please.
As for what you're saying: this thread is decided upon by staff members. What you're saying is also arguably incorrect. CGMs evaluate the math of a given feat, we are discussing the context of it- it falls within the purview of general staff members as well. I mentioned this earlier, though earlier I abided by your wish to have it done by CGMs instead. As no more are responding, I'm asking the other relevant staff body. This is why, even after producing an accepted calc, a CRT is necessary to get it applied.
To speak to a point you may understand: I would rather the CGMs evaluate it. I have a reasonable level of trust in all of those CGMs I pinged. Their evaluations tend to be very good. Even here, where the core of the issue is not really the math but the context surrounding it, I would trust their judgement- even from those who routinely disagree with me, such as Agnaa. I have less options of that nature in terms of staff. I just want the issue solved, as it is eating up too much time.
- 16,645
- 14,663
??????????????????
What are you yapping about? I'm doing neither, I disagree with you. I am doing so in a civil manner.
"reaching those same-", he says, why? Because I disagree with you? I've been beyond civil with you, knock it off.
Again, what are you talking about? disruptive behavior because I disagree with you and your stances and how you want to go about things? It's allowed.
It has been toned down, you're seeing stuff that isn't there.
Except, this is related to the math of it in full.
It's been like, 3 days? Or maybe 4? If it's been like a month I'd get it.
Last edited:
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 23,082
- 22,988
It cannot be framed as simple disagreement or cordial when there are very frequent, flippant accusations on the level of "do not try to undermine the opposition". It is not cordial at all. You are trying to frame my actions as being unfair when they are not. You have tried to frame the interpretations of a rather large amount of people as being dishonest or absurd, when under inspection they are not, to the point of "crashing out" even within the interpretation of those CGMs who have sided with your interpretations- it is not a matter of just disagreement, and claiming it as such is not a shield against rebuke. Play nice, man.
We'll see if people respond, in the meantime.
We'll see if people respond, in the meantime.
- 16,645
- 14,663
I mean yeah? I don't know what else you'd call basically shrugging CGM's involved here, and wanting to relegate a thread off a topic where the only point of contention is against you in particular into a staff only (Usually we don't make stuff staff only due to contention against one person), for a relatively basic topic that's only gone on for a few days at most? It's ignoring normal users, it's ignoring CGM's who disagree (don't really like how you keep waving around the status as an excuse, kinda why this place has bad rep, kinda making the whole calc slave meme real), framing it as taking an excessive amount of time, etc. If that isn't the intent, sure my bad, but that's definitely what it comes off as.
Correct to an extent. But you have done the same no? "You're being dishonest", or the multitude of you calling the opposing arguments silly, painfully obviously wrong, and other such things, etc.
I've done nothing yourself haven't in this very thread. If that is such a bad thing, why are you doing it too?
Unfortunate, then, that the same applies to you no?
It actively is. This has been civil. You're elevating it beyond that.
I have been. Exceptionally so. Moreso than you even. This is just instigating and derailing, I'm not going to humour this further, other mods can actually weigh in on the debate you've now actively derailed.
Last edited:
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 23,082
- 22,988
I've called you wrong and dishonest, you have called me wrong, dishonest, and corrupt, for doing those things you say we're both doing. Ironically, it is that accusation which exacerbates this. Regardless, I do feel your actions leveled against others earlier in the thread are most worthy of rebuttal- it's this defense mechanism of "anyone who accuses me is doing worse than me" that is most frustrating. I wish you didn't feel the need to engage in that sort of rhetoric.
The warning is issued, we're free to move on, now. Do so.
- 10,657
- 12,583
I should note, I had seen the existence of the thread before. Reason I never commented it's because I don't have a means to play the game for myself (yet), and I would like to go completely blind to it when I get the chance. So apologies for not being able to help here.
- 2,438
- 1,596
What's your vote, if you don't mind me asking?
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 23,082
- 22,988
I believe he doesn't wish to vote.
- 2,438
- 1,596
So... where are we with this now? Are we still looking for feats & calculations to support the accepted changes or what?
Last edited:
- 17,799
- 27,882
We need more CGMs to weigh in on whether or not they agree with chariot or bambu regarding the calc
- 2,438
- 1,596
The one from Wario Land?
- 394
- 246
Someone should contact some of them again. Maybe because Christmas is over, the staff will be less busy?
- 17,799
- 27,882
- 13,490
- 21,646
Atm I agree with Chariot regarding the Wario Land calc
- 2,438
- 1,596
What about everything else? We have enough tier 6 feats & votes to apply the changes, don't we?
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 23,082
- 22,988
It's 4-2, which isn't typically a big enough gap, no. That bit relies more on the presence of full on staff members: I've pinged both sorts but, obviously, with little success.
- 1,203
- 357
This is only the feat gathering CRT, i think Part 2 might be discussing on those feats and how they'll be applied or something like that
- 2,438
- 1,596
Actually, from my POV here, the only thing Planck seems to be neutral on is the Ice Flower feat, but he seems to be fine with the High 6-A scaling. And as for Armorchompy, he seems to be against everything but is fine with the High 6-A feat as long as it's consistent...
...unless, of course, I'm reading this wrong. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most CRTs these days require a minimum of at least 3 staff votes to pass?
Last edited:
ShakeResounding
He/Him- 9,101
- 8,328
- Thread starter
- #478
You're correct. Planck is in agreement with a High 6-A upgrade but is neutral about the Ice Flower, while Armor disagreed with the premise when there were 2 feats but noted he'd be content if more were found.
Also, scaling and applications to the profiles will only happen after Part 2; which will be a small recap and then trying to figure out scaling (as the scaling is not my strong suit).
- 2,438
- 1,596
That's fine; I'm just wondering where we are with this CRT.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 23,082
- 22,988
I was counting Planck. He makes it 4-2.
Similar threads
