WAHOOOO! Mario Bros AP Revisions (M&L Brothership Spoilers) - Part 1 (Feat-Gathering)

[ShakeResounding]

Are we really delaying these changes because of one calc?

The absolute STATE of CRTs...

 

[IDK3465]

Are we really delaying these changes because of one calc?

To be fair, that calc is pretty damn important if we want to prove High 6-A is consistent considering its probably the second highest feat so far that isn’t total bunk (like the crystal stars) or an outlier (Dark Bowser storm)

 

[Ghengiroo115]

To be fair, that calc is pretty damn important if we want to prove High 6-A is consistent considering its probably the second highest feat so far that isn’t total bunk (like the crystal stars) or an outlier (Dark Bowser storm)

Honestly it kinda sucks, considering how direct the storm feat is and how Dark Bowser’s whole goal revolves around him being able to do it in the first place, but yeah if there’s no other feats close to it it’ll likely be dismissed as an outlier.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Honestly it kinda sucks, considering how direct the storm feat is and how Dark Bowser’s whole goal revolves around him being able to do it in the first place, but yeah if there’s no other feats close to it it’ll likely be dismissed as an outlier.

I love ignoring the most blatant feats ever!

About the Wario calc, do we just need more CGMs to comment? We've got 2 on Chariot's side (myself and Dale) and 1 on Bambu's side (himself)

 

[IDK3465]

I love ignoring the most blatant feats ever!

About the Wario calc, do we just need more CGMs to comment? We've got 2 on Chariot's side (myself and Dale) and 1 on Bambu's side (himself)

Yup, pretty much

The problem is (as Flashlight pointed out) that it's all just a little too intimidating for new people to step in and give their thoughts.

 

[ShakeResounding]

Bump.

CGMs still need to pick between Chariot and Bambu's arguments (linked in OP), this can go nowhere otherwise.

 

[Speedblitzer50]

It looks like we will get GTA 6 before hight 6-A Mario

 

[McFriesGuy075]

Maybe Tier 5 if we end up using the Dark Bowser feat that would be supported by the Crystal Star stuff having the radiance of multiple stars?

 

[Chariot190]

Maybe Tier 5 if we end up using the Dark Bowser feat that would be supported by the Crystal Star stuff having the radiance of multiple stars?

Crystal Stars doesn't scale to anyone outside Shadow Queen and an amped squad. It's also quite a bit higher than you'd think. Could easily fall into 5-B based off just what we see in game.

For reference I don't think it's an outlier, she would need an upgrade, I'll probably do so eventually myself.

 

[Lou_change]

Given the difference between Mario and Luigi not being able to harm a dna enhanced dark star normally compared to bowser beating up dark fawful both of which having half the dark star's power and bower later beating a complete dark bowser. I would argue that some sort of strength increase happened in that game

 

[Vzearr]

Can someone PLEASE summarize Bambu's and Chariot's argument, for my sake.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The vast majority of conversation is regarding the timeframe and the speed of the cloud's dispersal. The on-screen speed of the clouds does not match the assumed timeframe of the cloud's dispersal offscreen- the calc wishes to presume one minute at the very most, when it took ten seconds to move less than a percentage of that (I provide a visual estimation of that here). Even acknowledging that the pace of the thing changes slightly within those ten seconds, there's no reality where it raises to such speeds within the provided estimation of one minute, which doesn't even really have a reason to be assumed aside from it being lower.

To summarize further points, I must summarize the broad strokes of Chariot's arguments- basically, Chariot argues that the timing must be a minute or less for other things happening to make sense. Wario jumps through a portal after snatching something, Chariot argues there's no reason for him to just stand there for twenty minutes (the approximate time it would take for the storm to dissipate should we assume a roughly even speed as the beginning). There's other examples of things that wouldn't make sense if they waited twenty whole minutes as opposed to one. Chariot further argues that characters saying "the evil is destroyed, etc" lines inherently means that the storm is fully dispersed, by the time they say that, giving further credence to the idea that it had to have happened before Wario stepped through the portal. While it is not relevant to my future counterarguments as much, Chariot places a great deal of importance on the uptick in speed in the video- at a certain point, the animation speed of the storm grows- not immensely, but noticeably, but it does grow.

My contention to that is that they don't need to wait until the storm fully dissipates. Wario does not necessarily need to wait until the storm is fully dissipated, and in fact he has no means of even knowing when it is fully dissipated. The first major point of Chariot's is irrelevant because we both agree that Wario probably wouldn't wait for twenty minutes (I don't even think he'd wait for one), I just don't see that as being in of itself relevant to the time it takes for the storm to disperse, because he also has no reason to wait for that as the requirement to leave. It is dispersing, there's no reason to stick around until the process is 100% done. As for the second point, I contend that someone can say something is over, even as its aftereffects are dispersing and being destroyed. A war is over long before all of the soldiers have given up their posts and the aftermath is handled. In the same way, the storm can be dealt with before it is 100% dispersed. So, these factors aren't relevant in judging when the storm is fully dispersed, you cannot use them to glean end timeframe. As for the change in speed, it can be any number of things- a moment of inconsistency in animation, a property of the light to pulse once, or a trick of perspective. It is more arbitrary to assume it sped up to heights unseen exponentially than to assume it maintained a relatively consistent speed throughout.

There's a great deal of chatter on both sides regarding cinematic time, but I sincerely don't feel it is relevant to the end conversation, as given the last few posts on the matter, I feel a level of confusion and misunderstanding played a part in that discussion, and it served as a vehicle to those last points more than serving as a point itself.

 

[Vzearr]

I agree with Bambu here.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

(Should probably wait to hear from a Mario person to give their own version of the summary, being fair)

 

[CloverDragon03]

I agree with Bambu here.

You literally didn't even hear Chariot's side, at least hear both sides first

 

[Mr. Bambu]

He heard my summary of it, but I imagine people would take offense to being summarized by the person they disagree with, aye. Even if he is right to agree with me.

 

[CloverDragon03]

He heard my summary of it, but I imagine people would take offense to being summarized by the person they disagree with, aye. Even if he is right to agree with me.

I imagine so, yeah. Best to hear both sides straight up

Also nuh-uh

 

[Vzearr]

You literally didn't even hear Chariot's side, at least hear both sides first

I would hope that Bambu could give an unbiased review of the conversation, it's not about sides, it's a summary, it really shouldn't differ greatly between people.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I would hope that Bambu could give an unbiased review of the conversation, it's not about sides, it's a summary, it really shouldn't differ greatly between people.

Sure, but they would presumably want to talk about it more. Plus, some would presume one would feel it is biased either way. If only to show that both sides gave their summary, it's better to hear 'em out. If you didn't want to wait, Clover is a CGM who supports the other side, and could presumably offer a fair summary.

 

[CloverDragon03]

If you didn't want to wait, Clover is a CGM who supports the other side, and could presumably offer a fair summary.

Unfortunately I've got the college debuff so maybe, maybe not, idk

 

[Chariot190]

The vast majority of conversation is regarding the timeframe and the speed of the cloud's dispersal. The on-screen speed of the clouds does not match the assumed timeframe of the cloud's dispersal offscreen- the calc wishes to presume one minute at the very most, when it took ten seconds to move less than a percentage of that (I provide a visual estimation of that here).

It also doesn't match your own example, we have gone through this.

Even acknowledging that the pace of the thing changes slightly within those ten seconds, there's no reality where it raises to such speeds within the provided estimation of one minute, which doesn't even really have a reason to be assumed aside from it being lower.

Bambu, we have gone through this. The speed of the clouds actively skyrocket. The end speed, which is not up for debate, is actively massively different from the speed you are proposing be used.

Reason? We actively see as much, we do not need to assume a single a thing here, that's the thing, everything is shown to varying degrees.

To summarize further points, I must summarize the broad strokes of Chariot's arguments- basically,

Please do not strawman.

Chariot argues that the timing must be a minute or less for other things happening to make sense.

Correct.

Wario jumps through a portal after snatching something, Chariot argues there's no reason for him to just stand there for twenty minutes (the approximate time it would take for the storm to dissipate should we assume a roughly even speed as the beginning).

Ignoring how you actively, many times, said you were no longer argue the initial speed. This is true. He would not have reason.

There's other examples of things that wouldn't make sense if they waited twenty whole minutes as opposed to one.

Then why argue it if you concede it makes no sense?

Chariot further argues that characters saying "the evil is destroyed, etc" lines inherently means that the storm is fully dispersed, by the time they say that, giving further credence to the idea that it had to have happened before Wario stepped through the portal.

Indeed, that is what they say.

While it is not relevant to my future counterarguments as much, Chariot places a great deal of importance on the uptick in speed in the video- at a certain point, the animation speed of the storm grows- not immensely, but noticeably, but it does grow.

No. Unless we just have very majorly different definitions of "uptick", magnitudes of difference isn't minor. You are framing this in a misleading way, whether intentional or not, it simply isn't true.

My contention to that is that they don't need to wait until the storm fully dissipates. Wario does not necessarily need to wait until the storm is fully dissipated, and in fact he has no means of even knowing when it is fully dissipated.

This is objectively incorrect. Wario would know, because of the globe. He doesn't need to wait, and might not wait too, that is true, but that doesn't support your claims, it goes against them. If Wario did not wait around, then we have no reason to assume a time cut for the statement, and the statement actively specifies that the whole of the dimension, not some, but all of it, has been returned to normal.
If he did not wait before leaving, and left right away, then the globe not having the storm, is direct confirmation it has since been gone. This has been mentioned before.

The first major point of Chariot's is irrelevant because we both agree that Wario probably wouldn't wait for twenty minutes (I don't even think he'd wait for one), I just don't see that as being in of itself relevant to the time it takes for the storm to disperse, because he also has no reason to wait for that as the requirement to leave. It is dispersing, there's no reason to stick around until the process is 100% done.

Correct, he wouldn't, which is precisely why the storm didn't take your claimed 20 minutes to fully disperse.

If he did not wait, then by the time they say everything is normal, no meaningful degree of time has passed.
If he did not wait, then the globe showing no indication of the storm or clouds dispersing across the globe, means it had already occurred.

You have conceded on this front, but what you agree with, goes against the very argument you're presenting.

As for the second point, I contend that someone can say something is over, even as its aftereffects are dispersing and being destroyed. A war is over long before all of the soldiers have given up their posts and the aftermath is handled. In the same way, the storm can be dealt with before it is 100% dispersed.

Absolutely not. That's a tremendous false equivalence.

This is not a war, it's a huge life threatening storm.

They could have, and would have, worded it differently to align with your claims if that was the intent. But they do not. It is worded present-past tense, it has already happened. It is not worded present-future tense, ie, is happening and will happen.

They could have said "peace is returning" or "peace will return" or any other variant of that, but they do not. They specify that it has returned, ie, it has already happened, past tense, and that it applies to the whole of that dimension, given they specify the whole dimension as well, leaving no room for debate.

You would not say everything is back to normal if the storm still exists in some places still. The storm is actively dangerous, and makes some places hell. Until the storm is gone, peace wouldn't have returned, at least, not to the whole dimension, which they specify in this context.

Using your war examples. If a war ends, you'd say it's over sure, but you wouldn't go "the war has ended, everywhere on earth is back to normal" if there's still after effects and struggles ongoing in some places due to it, because it would simply be wrong, everywhere isn't back to normal, they might be slowly returning back to normal, but that's future tense, not past tense.

Essentially, what is actually said and shown, and what you frame it as, are not the same thing. They do not align, and this isn't the type of statement open to interpretation to begin with, as the only reason why this is even a point of debate, is not because of any actual evidence the cloud is still dispersing, but simply because if you take one of the slower velocities among the cloud scene, it would extend past when they say that, or when he exits. Even though you could just as easily take another speed from that same scene, and then it'd be gone by the time they say that and he leaves too.

This isn't an argument based on the actual context, lore, or what actually happened, but simply a conclusion built upon the verdict of a speed you yourself has conceded isn't uniform.

So, these factors aren't relevant in judging when the storm is fully dispersed, you cannot use them to glean end timeframe.

You actively can.

As for the change in speed, it can be any number of things- a moment of inconsistency in animation, a property of the light to pulse once, or a trick of perspective. It is more arbitrary to assume it sped up to heights unseen exponentially than to assume it maintained a relatively consistent speed throughout.

It doesn't matter why it changes, fact is it does, in fact, change.

If it's a inconsistency in the animation, picking the beginning speed is simply cherry picking a speed that ultimately leads to contrivences with later statements and showings and the context itself.
A property of the light pulsing doesn't effect whether or not it changed speeds.
It can't be a trick of perspective, the final shot is a wideshot from high altitude with a completely clear horizon line.

You say it is arbitrary to assume it sped up, and that is true, it would be. But that's the problem here, there is no such thing as "assuming", we know it did, this isn't up for debate. We see it happen, it's explicit. The values at play are not the same throughout the scene.

Despite your claims not to use the beginning speed earlier in the thread, you've argued it again.

There's a great deal of chatter on both sides regarding cinematic time, but I sincerely don't feel it is relevant to the end conversation, as given the last few posts on the matter, I feel a level of confusion and misunderstanding played a part in that discussion, and it served as a vehicle to those last points more than serving as a point itself.

And this is why you do not argue in "broad strokes".

I am going to step by step again here for summary.

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, messed 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 unrealistic based on the info we have, Wario did not stick around that long, it did not take him that long to go back, nor did it take him that long to exit.

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.

Spoiler: it 2 frame

funny epilepsy warning, the clouds spontaneously cover that distance in a literal frame. In real time mind you as we know this cutscene more or less takes place in real time.

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 distance in that time and thus had that speed for however long. This is a case of the perceived speed changing.

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, 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, 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. This is the only scene where perspective might possibly come into play, but it wouldn't to a meaningful degree as it's still demonstrably different from the preceding and following values.

What speed is correct? Who knows, it doesn't matter. But the proposed 20 minutes is based on a speed that never even actually happened. If we want the speed the majority of the clouds dispersed at, we would use the final speed.
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 that for now.



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, so in actuality it'd be quite a bit larger, which I'm going to say would compensate for the rough scaling.

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 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 to fully disperse the storm.
This is actively lower than the 1 minute timeframe, and well below the 20 minute timeframe that doesn't actually exist, and not far off from the evident intent of the scene which is only 27 seconds and 18 frames.

Now, it is being said the speed discrepencies ain't major, I disagree. Clearing a 80km horizon (Could easily be higher) in mere seconds is a very blatant and explicit showing that contradicts the initial speed.

The speed starts off
16283.296 m/s (Initial parting)
Drops to 564.41m/s (Clouds moving in the distance; would take a substantial amount of time to even reach the island at that rate, pass it, and clear the horizon we see at the end would take several minutes despite the cutscene being not even 1/4th as long)
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 given the clouds about 3km apparently, good enough, this is moreso just to explain the problems, not give a concrete value. Also important to note, due to the upward facing angle, the clouds at the end of this, are above 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 if we ignore the inconsistent 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.
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.

If the clouds actively fluctuate, it can't be handwaved and a slower value picked if said value leads to contradictions.
Worse case scenario, we use the final speed which is ironically the quickest (Meaning all the arguments about slow down, physics, timeskips, etc, don't hold much weight here). Or we use the statement or Wario leaving as the timeframe. But either way, they'd be almost the exact same timeframe. Which I'd argue has some implications but that's beside the point.

So, tldr.
We have admittance of fluctuating speeds. That the Wario scene likely isn't a time skip. To use the horizon clear view speed (Would literally be sub-minute anyway?).

I can't speak for anyone else, but the only logical conclusion I see, is to use the statements for the timeframe given by the time it is said, it would be gone because that's what that collective string of words entails, at worst Wario exiting given the globe is cleared by that point, as in, the storm is gone. Or to use the final known speed in which the majority of the clouds get dispersed at, which would be the final horizon view, which would coincidentally still be under a minute. And we just subtract the initial bit from it ig if we wanna be safe. That is two options, which one we use, I'm open with, I just vehemently don't agree with the 20m proposal.

Edit: In case it wasn't obvious, but the globe reflects the shake dimension in real time, we even see clouds part on it in real time earlier in game. The big storm or clouds not spreading it across it post-exit, is evidence, I've explained that already but doing so again.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It also doesn't match your own example, we have gone through this.

Bambu, we have gone through this. The speed of the clouds actively skyrocket. The end speed, which is not up for debate, is actively massively different from the speed you are proposing be used.

Reason? We actively see as much, we do not need to assume a single a thing here, that's the thing, everything is shown to varying degrees.

Please do not strawman.

Correct.

Ignoring how you actively, many times, said you were no longer argue the initial speed. This is true. He would not have reason.

Then why argue it if you concede it makes no sense?

Indeed, that is what they say.

No. Unless we just have very majorly different definitions of "uptick", magnitudes of difference isn't minor. You are framing this in a misleading way, whether intentional or not, it simply isn't true.

This is objectively incorrect. Wario would know, because of the globe. He doesn't need to wait, and might not wait too, that is true, but that doesn't support your claims, it goes against them. If Wario did not wait around, then we have no reason to assume a time cut for the statement, and the statement actively specifies that the whole of the dimension, not some, but all of it, has been returned to normal.
If he did not wait before leaving, and left right away, then the globe not having the storm, is direct confirmation it has since been gone. This has been mentioned before.

Correct, he wouldn't, which is precisely why the storm didn't take your claimed 20 minutes to fully disperse.

If he did not wait, then by the time they say everything is normal, no meaningful degree of time has passed.
If he did not wait, then the globe showing no indication of the storm or clouds dispersing across the globe, means it had already occurred.

You have conceded on this front, but what you agree with, goes against the very argument you're presenting.

Absolutely not. That's a tremendous false equivalence.

This is not a war, it's a huge life threatening storm.

They could have, and would have, worded it differently to align with your claims if that was the intent. But they do not. It is worded present-past tense, it has already happened. It is not worded present-future tense, ie, is happening and will happen.

They could have said "peace is returning" or "peace will return" or any other variant of that, but they do not. They specify that it has returned, ie, it has already happened, past tense, and that it applies to the whole of that dimension, given they specify the whole dimension as well, leaving no room for debate.

You would not say everything is back to normal if the storm still exists in some places still. The storm is actively dangerous, and makes some places hell. Until the storm is gone, peace wouldn't have returned, at least, not to the whole dimension, which they specify in this context.

Using your war examples. If a war ends, you'd say it's over sure, but you wouldn't go "the war has ended, everywhere on earth is back to normal" if there's still after effects and struggles ongoing in some places due to it, because it would simply be wrong, everywhere isn't back to normal, they might be slowly returning back to normal, but that's future tense, not past tense.

Essentially, what is actually said and shown, and what you frame it as, are not the same thing. They do not align, and this isn't the type of statement open to interpretation to begin with, as the only reason why this is even a point of debate, is not because of any actual evidence the cloud is still dispersing, but simply because if you take one of the slower velocities among the cloud scene, it would extend past when they say that, or when he exits. Even though you could just as easily take another speed from that same scene, and then it'd be gone by the time they say that and he leaves too.

This isn't an argument based on the actual context, lore, or what actually happened, but simply a conclusion built upon the verdict of a speed you yourself has conceded isn't uniform.

You actively can.

It doesn't matter why it changes, fact is it does, in fact, change.

If it's a inconsistency in the animation, picking the beginning speed is simply cherry picking a speed that ultimately leads to contrivences with later statements and showings and the context itself.
A property of the light pulsing doesn't effect whether or not it changed speeds.
It can't be a trick of perspective, the final shot is a wideshot from high altitude with a completely clear horizon line.

You say it is arbitrary to assume it sped up, and that is true, it would be. But that's the problem here, there is no such thing as "assuming", we know it did, this isn't up for debate. We see it happen, it's explicit. he values at play are not the same throughout the scene.

Despite your claims not to use the beginning speed


And this is why you do not argue in "broad strokes".

I am going to step by step again here for summary.

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, messed 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 unrealistic based on the info we have, Wario did not stick around that long, it did not take him that long to go back, nor did it take him that long to exit.

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.

Spoiler: it 2 frame

funny epilepsy warning, the clouds spontaneously cover that distance in a literal frame. In real time mind you as we know this cutscene more or less takes place in real time.

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 distance in that time and thus had that speed for however long. This is a case of the perceived speed changing.

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, 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, 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. This is the only scene where perspective might possibly come into play, but it wouldn't to a meaningful degree as it's still demonstrably different from the preceding and following values.

What speed is correct? Who knows, it doesn't matter. But the proposed 20 minutes is based on a speed that never even actually happened. If we want the speed the majority of the clouds dispersed at, we would use the final speed.
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 that for now.



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, so in actuality it'd be quite a bit larger, which I'm going to say would compensate for the rough scaling.

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 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 to fully disperse the storm.
This is actively lower than the 1 minute timeframe, and well below the 20 minute timeframe that doesn't actually exist, and not far off from the evident intent of the scene which is only 27 seconds and 18 frames.

Now, it is being said the speed discrepencies ain't major, I disagree. Clearing a 80km horizon (Could easily be higher) in mere seconds is a very blatant and explicit showing that contradicts the initial speed.

The speed starts off
16283.296 m/s (Initial parting)
Drops to 564.41m/s (Clouds moving in the distance; would take a substantial amount of time to even reach the island at that rate, pass it, and clear the horizon we see at the end would take several minutes despite the cutscene being not even 1/4th as long)
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 given the clouds about 3km apparently, good enough, this is moreso just to explain the problems, not give a concrete value. Also important to note, due to the upward facing angle, the clouds at the end of this, are above 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 if we ignore the inconsistent 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.
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.

If the clouds actively fluctuate, it can't be handwaved and a slower value picked if said value leads to contradictions.
Worse case scenario, we use the final speed which is ironically the quickest (Meaning all the arguments about slow down, physics, timeskips, etc, don't hold much weight here). Or we use the statement or Wario leaving as the timeframe. But either way, they'd be almost the exact same timeframe. Which I'd argue has some implications but that's beside the point.

So, tldr.
We have admittance of fluctuating speeds. That the Wario scene likely isn't a time skip. To use the horizon clear view speed (Would literally be sub-minute anyway?).

I can't speak for anyone else, but the only logical conclusion I see, is to use the statements for the timeframe given by the time it is said, it would be gone because that's what that collective string of words entails, at worst Wario exiting given the globe is cleared by that point, as in, the storm is gone. Or to use the final known speed in which the majority of the clouds get dispersed at, which would be the final horizon view, which would coincidentally still be under a minute. And we just subtract the initial bit from it ig if we wanna be safe. That is two options, which one we use, I'm open with, I just vehemently don't agree with the 20m proposal.

"We have gone through this" is not honest. You have argued a position and you present it as objectively correct in arguments but there is immense room for disagreement, no amount of text can change that. You're returning to the same accusatory nonsense (strawmanning for attempting to clarify your position briefly, then broadly agreeing with my summary- It doesn't even make sense)

I'm issuing a second warning. There is no room for this to be a heat of the moment thing, the thread has been dead for some time. You were warned to approach debates with a careful hand, and instead immediately you come in with the same accusatory, toxic tone. Chill out, man. The debate is months old. There's no need for this. Play nice or don't play.

 

[Chariot190]

"We have gone through this" is not honest.

It is, because we have. We have discussed that at length, it does not check out.

You have argued a position and you present it as objectively correct in arguments but there is immense room for disagreement,

Because it is. At the end of the day, we can disagree with the speeds used, but the fact it does in fact change is objective, you've even conceded as such.

no amount of text can change that. You're returning to the same accusatory nonsense (strawmanning for attempting to clarify your position briefly, then broadly agreeing with my summary- It doesn't even make sense)

I really don't think you know what an accusation is.
It is strawmanning. Do not clarify my position, I can do it myself.
Do not speak for others. Especially if details will be lost as you do it. This is common sense.

Your summary, and your verdict, do not align.

It makes sense, perfectly so.

I'm issuing a second warning. There is no room for this to be a heat of the moment thing, the thread has been dead for some time. You were warned to approach debates with a careful hand, and instead immediately you come in with the same accusatory, toxic tone. Chill out, man. The debate is months old. There's no need for this. Play nice or don't play.

There's literally no way on this green and blue earth that you think "we've gone through this" is being heated as opposed to going "oh we've discussed that before".
Nothing was toxic. Nothing was accusatory, beyond the fact you misintepreted my arguments a bit, a fact I didn't even really focus on but yep, that was a thing you did, whether it was intentional or not.

 

[Psychomaster35]

If I'm getting this correctly, Chariot suggests using the middle speed of the clouds shown in the feat within the short timeframe we have while Bambu suggests getting the speed with using the slowest cloud movement speed on screen. Honestly, I'm siding with Chariot more.

 

[Chariot190]

If I'm getting this correctly, Chariot suggests using the middle speed of the clouds shown in the feat within the short timeframe we have while Bambu suggests getting the speed with using the slowest cloud movement speed on screen. Honestly, I'm siding with Chariot more.

Not the middle speed. Just the speed 99% of the clouds would have been dispersed at (or well, like 98%?), so basically the final wide horizon shot, which is also ironically the final known speed.

Assuming we don't want to take the statements at face value, or assuming we don't want to take Wario exiting the dimension and the shake globe not having clouds actively moving across it still as evidence.

For reference, the current timeframe being used of 20m~, doesn't actually occur, it's moreso high, drops to 500mps~, and then just jumps ahead again almost instantly and is suddenly way quicker, so either way that would need to be changed given the speed atm simply doesn't exist.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It is, because we have. We have discussed that at length, it does not check out.

Because it is. At the end of the day, we can disagree with the speeds used, but the fact it does in fact change is objective, you've even conceded as such.

I really don't think you know what an accusation is.
It is strawmanning. Do not clarify my position, I can do it myself.
Do not speak for others. Especially if details will be lost as you do it. This is common sense.

Your summary, and your verdict, do not align.

It makes sense, perfectly so.

There's literally no way on this green and blue earth that you think "we've gone through this" is being heated as opposed to going "oh we've discussed that before".
Nothing was toxic. Nothing was accusatory, beyond the fact you misintepreted my arguments a bit, a fact I didn't even really focus on but yep, that was a thing you did, whether it was intentional or not.

Strawmanning is arguing a position you do not maintain. Me clarifying your position, isn't strawmanning- you just started throwing baseless accusations again.

If I'm getting this correctly, Chariot suggests using the middle speed of the clouds shown in the feat within the short timeframe we have while Bambu suggests getting the speed with using the slowest cloud movement speed on screen. Honestly, I'm siding with Chariot more.

You aren't reading it correctly. I'm suggesting using the higher onscreen speed. Chariot is suggesting using an assumed timeframe based on external criteria (e.g., how long Wario would reasonably wait for) that don't have any bearing on the actual speed of the thing. Whether willfully or not, this contention has been ignored.

 

[Chariot190]

Strawmanning is arguing a position you do not maintain. Me clarifying your position, isn't strawmanning- you just started throwing baseless accusations again.

Don't clarify my position if you can not do so properly.

Don't do that for anybody's position, ever, you are not them.
Do not speak for them. Unless given permission by them, because you can very easily, and have objectively done so, misinterpret or skew what is actually said.
I do not care if it was intentional, I am not saying it was intentional, but fact is it happened, you did so, do not do it again let alone try to justify it.

You aren't reading it correctly. I'm suggesting using the higher onscreen speed. Chariot is suggesting using an assumed timeframe based on external criteria (e.g., how long Wario would reasonably wait for) that don't have any bearing on the actual speed of the thing. Whether willfully or not, this contention has been ignored.

Literally case and point. Please stop trying to talk for other people.

I suggested many things, multiple things, and explained why in detail they would take precedence. I even proposed two extra alternatives I'd be fine with. Like 4 times now.

They do have bearing on the speed. How can the clouds still be spreading across the globe if the globe is shown that they are gone already? How can the storm and the whole dimension be fine if it's still spreading as it's being said? You don't need to agree with it, but to say it means nothing isn't good when the basis for those claims, is it contradicts a inconsistent speed.

(the approximate time it would take for the storm to dissipate should we assume a roughly even speed as the beginning).

Also as here, you have also on this page alone, made mention of using the 20m timeframe, multiple times. Or to use the beginning speed. The 20m timeframe doesn't actually exist, this has been said a few times now, the beginning speed is even worse off.

So I'm not even sure what speed you're arguing for at this point, it can't be 20m, it isn't real. But you keep arguing against using things like the horizon shot because you keep saying it has to be over a minute.

 

[Psychomaster35]

You aren't reading it correctly. I'm suggesting using the higher onscreen speed. Chariot is suggesting using an assumed timeframe based on external criteria (e.g., how long Wario would reasonably wait for) that don't have any bearing on the actual speed of the thing. Whether willfully or not, this contention has been ignored.

That was the complete opposite from what I've been told about the summaries on both sides, but if we're going by whatever the fastest speed of the dispersion is, then I'm fine using that speed.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Don't clarify my position if you can not do so properly.

Don't do that for anybody's position, ever, you are not them.
Do not speak for them. Unless given permission by them, because you can very easily, and have objectively done so, misinterpret or skew what is actually said.
I do not care if it was intentional, I am not saying it was intentional, but fact is it happened, you did so, do not do it again let alone try to justify it.

Literally case and point. Please stop trying to talk for other people.

I suggested many things, multiple things, and explained why in detail they would take precedence. I even proposed two extra alternatives I'd be fine with. Like 4 times now.

They do have bearing on the speed. How can the clouds still be spreading across the globe if the globe is shown that they are gone already? How can the storm and the whole dimension be fine if it's still spreading as it's being said? You don't need to agree with it, but to say it means nothing isn't good when the basis for those claims, is it contradicts a inconsistent speed.

Also as here, you have also on this page alone, made mention of using the 20m timeframe, multiple times. Or to use the beginning speed. The 20m timeframe doesn't actually exist, this has been said a few times now, the beginning speed is even worse off.

So I'm not even sure what speed you're arguing for at this point, it can't be 20m, it isn't real. But you keep arguing against using things like the horizon shot because you keep saying it has to be over a minute.

Don't throw out random debating terms if you don't understand what they mean. I was asked to give a summary and I did so. I then suggested waiting to hear from a supporter, such as yourself, to explain it in your own words. I didn't misrepresent your position, I didn't claim you were arguing things you were not- you have done that to me, however, but I am refraining from the biting back and forth. You're acting out again and it isn't wanted, man.

It is clear that you aren't sure what I'm arguing for, yeah. That much is apparent. I've explained it just above, though.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

That was the complete opposite from what I've been told about the summaries on both sides, but if we're going by whatever the fastest speed of the dispersion is, then I'm fine using that speed.

The vast majority of conversation is regarding the timeframe and the speed of the cloud's dispersal. The on-screen speed of the clouds does not match the assumed timeframe of the cloud's dispersal offscreen- the calc wishes to presume one minute at the very most, when it took ten seconds to move less than a percentage of that (I provide a visual estimation of that here). Even acknowledging that the pace of the thing changes slightly within those ten seconds, there's no reality where it raises to such speeds within the provided estimation of one minute, which doesn't even really have a reason to be assumed aside from it being lower.

To summarize further points, I must summarize the broad strokes of Chariot's arguments- basically, Chariot argues that the timing must be a minute or less for other things happening to make sense. Wario jumps through a portal after snatching something, Chariot argues there's no reason for him to just stand there for twenty minutes (the approximate time it would take for the storm to dissipate should we assume a roughly even speed as the beginning). There's other examples of things that wouldn't make sense if they waited twenty whole minutes as opposed to one. Chariot further argues that characters saying "the evil is destroyed, etc" lines inherently means that the storm is fully dispersed, by the time they say that, giving further credence to the idea that it had to have happened before Wario stepped through the portal. While it is not relevant to my future counterarguments as much, Chariot places a great deal of importance on the uptick in speed in the video- at a certain point, the animation speed of the storm grows- not immensely, but noticeably, but it does grow.

My contention to that is that they don't need to wait until the storm fully dissipates. Wario does not necessarily need to wait until the storm is fully dissipated, and in fact he has no means of even knowing when it is fully dissipated. The first major point of Chariot's is irrelevant because we both agree that Wario probably wouldn't wait for twenty minutes (I don't even think he'd wait for one), I just don't see that as being in of itself relevant to the time it takes for the storm to disperse, because he also has no reason to wait for that as the requirement to leave. It is dispersing, there's no reason to stick around until the process is 100% done. As for the second point, I contend that someone can say something is over, even as its aftereffects are dispersing and being destroyed. A war is over long before all of the soldiers have given up their posts and the aftermath is handled. In the same way, the storm can be dealt with before it is 100% dispersed. So, these factors aren't relevant in judging when the storm is fully dispersed, you cannot use them to glean end timeframe. As for the change in speed, it can be any number of things- a moment of inconsistency in animation, a property of the light to pulse once, or a trick of perspective. It is more arbitrary to assume it sped up to heights unseen exponentially than to assume it maintained a relatively consistent speed throughout.

There's a great deal of chatter on both sides regarding cinematic time, but I sincerely don't feel it is relevant to the end conversation, as given the last few posts on the matter, I feel a level of confusion and misunderstanding played a part in that discussion, and it served as a vehicle to those last points more than serving as a point itself.

I have recommended using the displayed speed, actually.

 

[Chariot190]

You're acting out again and it isn't wanted, man.

I am telling you not to do a thing. It is in my right, do not do that, do not justify it either, I could call you out on the hypocrisy in how you accused me of having just done it to you, but I don't particularly care, just stop arguing for other people. Say oops my bad, or whatever, I don't quite care that you did, but you're who focused on the "accusatory" claims to begin with, I am simply telling you that it happened regardless of if it was intentional or not.

Besides that, nothing is being acted out, it's simple discussion back and forth.

It is clear that you aren't sure what I'm arguing for, yeah. That much is apparent. I've explained it just above, though.

Please cut the thinly veiled sass.
I read it, but many of your points go against each the other, or you say one thing, and then said thing goes against the other things you say.
For example, you consistently argued for the use of 20 minutes and that 1 minute is impossible, you have stated many times that it must take that long. But you also say don't use the initial speed. But then you also say use the beginning speed later. What you say is changing constantly, or can't be mutual.

So just cut it, what do you actually want done here. The 20m is bunk, it isn't even real, so actually work with people here.

 

[Chariot190]

I have recommended using the displayed speed, actually.

Which one, there is the initial burst, the spreading at the start, the jump to the island, the overhead shot, or the final horizon clear.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I am telling you not to do a thing. It is in my right, do not do that, do not justify it either, I could call you out on the hypocrisy in how you accused me of having just done it to you, but I don't particularly care, just stop arguing for other people. Say oops my bad, or whatever, I don't quite care that you did, but you're who focused on the "accusatory" claims to begin with, I am simply telling you that it happened regardless of if it was intentional or not.

Besides that, nothing is being acted out, it's simple discussion back and forth.

Please cut the thinly veiled sass.
I read it, but many of your points go against each the other, or you say one thing, and then said thing goes against the other things you say.
For example, you consistently argued for the use of 20 minutes and that 1 minute is impossible, you have stated many times that it must take that long. But you also say don't use the initial speed. But then you also say use the beginning speed later. What you say is changing constantly, or can't be mutual.

So just cut it, what do you actually want done here. The 20m is bunk, it isn't even real, so actually work with people here.

I'm telling you to not do a thing, and you're doing it. The thing you're telling me not to do, is not to explain the situation to people. The thing I'm telling you not to do, is the debatelord thing where people throw out random baseless debating phrases as accusations to hush up the other side. My thing, is not against the rules- your thing, is against the rules. It is within your rights to ask me not to do it, and while I would say I did a pretty fair job explaining it (so much so that you, yourself, agreed with the bits that I said were your positions- even if you disagree with my interpretations of them explained afterwards), I would probably oblige, in spite of the insane rudeness being shown.

You have consistently misinterpreted or misrepresented my point. That is what a strawman is- if you did so willingly, at least. The points about Wario needing to be at a certain position, the way you argue them does not align with what my position on those matters are. So very little of the debate is meaningful. When you say you do not understand my position, I believe you. 20 minutes isn't bunk, you just believe it is. Which is your right! My issue is with your insistence on concession to assumptions on your behalf that do not align with reality! You are doing that which you accuse me of doing- demanding concession from others. You shouldn't, and I will now ask you to not do so again. If this thread continues to be unruly, I will handle that.

 

[Chariot190]

I believe you. 20 minutes isn't bunk, you just believe it is.

No it literally, objectively is. 20 minute stems from the clouds covering 20km~ in about 9 seconds, as explained in the calc. This is not true. For a chunk of those 9 seconds, we see them spread at a meager 500mps~, and then the last sub-1 second it covers the rest of those like 17km~ in mere frames.

The speed at which 20m is derived from, doesn't exist. This has been explained. It is bunk, because the speed itself never actually happened, the person who made the very calc even acknowledges that.

The rest is a waste of my time. Practice what you preach.
And you not arguing a specific notion in particular, doesn't change if that notion effects your end conclusion due to the additional context, which it does.

Evidently we're done here. I will summarize my points, people can then look.

 

[Omnificence]

I'm not a calc member, but I'm in agreement with @Chariot190 here; I really don't think it'd take 20 or more minutes for the clouds in this feat to disperse. Like, unless I wasn't paying attention, where did we even get 20 minutes from & what visual evidence suggests that the clouds took this long to disperse?

 

[Arceus0x]

Yeah same here, I feel like Chariot's option is more reasonable.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

No it literally, objectively is. 20 minute stems from the clouds covering 20km~ in about 9 seconds, as explained in the calc. This is not true. For a chunk of those 9 seconds, we see them spread at a meager 500mps~, and then the last sub-1 second it covers the rest of those like 17km~ in mere frames.

The speed at which 20m is derived from, doesn't exist. This has been explained. It is bunk, because the speed itself never actually happened, the person who made the very calc even acknowledges that.

The rest is a waste of my time. Practice what you preach.
And you not arguing a specific notion in particular, doesn't change if that notion effects your end conclusion due to the additional context, which it does.

Evidently we're done here. I will summarize my points, people can then look.

Objectivity does not hinge on assumptions. So your point is not objective, it is subjective. Objective just sounds better.

I can offer a recalc to determine figures myself, if you'd like my math to cover it. 20m is derived from the calc as it is, I've said I feel the calc to be flawed and I stand by that. So if there is a concession in my arguments that you'd like, it's that 20 minutes may well be off the mark- it's just less so than 1 minute.

 

[Omnificence]

Objectivity does not hinge on assumptions. So your point is not objective, it is subjective. Objective just sounds better.

I can offer a recalc to determine figures myself, if you'd like my math to cover it. 20m is derived from the calc as it is, I've said I feel the calc to be flawed and I stand by that. So if there is a concession in my arguments that you'd like, it's that 20 minutes may well be off the mark- it's just less so than 1 minute.

Okay... but again, why are we using 20 minutes in this instance? Is there any evidence inside the feat that proves it took this long for the clouds to disperse?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Okay... but again, why are we using 20 minutes in this instance? Is there any evidence inside the feat that proves it took this long for the clouds to disperse?

20 minutes was based on the average displayed speed on-screen. I've elaborated on that a few times. It was a major point of discussion a few pages back, even. With that said, Chariot now says he holds issue with this exact number- I'd be open to adjusting it to the maximum on-screen displayed speed, along with other possible adjustments. Hence the statement you're replying to.

 

[Omnificence]

20 minutes was based on the average displayed speed on-screen.

How do we know it took exactly 20 minutes for them to disperse, though? Which part of the calculation or video showing the feat itself got us that result?