• 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)

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.

20 minutes still isn't an averge when this is the numbers for how the speed jumps as per the above post

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

So I'm still not seeing where that comes from, can you show your math for that here please
 
20 minutes still isn't an averge when this is the numbers for how the speed jumps as per the above post



So I'm still not seeing where that comes from
So, based upon this, what would be the closest or most accurate guesstimate for how long it'd take?
 
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?
The first time it was mentioned to me was by Chariot, here, after my first post on the subject. I suppose I would not wish to explain his work for him. It's just sort of stuck in the conversation as a general term for my position- the actual timeframe would need calculating.
 
The first time it was mentioned to me was by Chariot, here, after my first post on the subject. I suppose I would not wish to explain his work for him. It's just sort of stuck in the conversation as a general term for my position- the actual timeframe would need calculating.
That's still not an average? He said lets assume the lowest end for arguments sake when talking about the differences of the dispersal speed between different shots.

Can we use the actual average of the above calculated values for each shot that we already have since you yourself have been saying the lowest end possible is the "average speed"
20 minutes was based on the average displayed speed on-screen
 
The first time it was mentioned to me was by Chariot, here, after my first post on the subject. I suppose I would not wish to explain his work for him. It's just sort of stuck in the conversation as a general term for my position- the actual timeframe would need calculating.
Okay, but that's just an assumption like Chariot & Dale said. Again, where's the visual or mathematical proof it actually took this long?
 
That's still not an average? He said lets assume the lowest end for arguments sake when talking about the differences of the dispersal speed between different shots.

Can we use the actual average of the above calculated values for each shot that we already have since you yourself have been saying the lowest end possible is the "average speed"

No, I didn't say he said it was an average. To be clear, I'm not defending or using it in any way, it's just been a useful term up to this point to denote the "counterargument". I didn't come up with the figure, nor do I stand by its use. As I said, an appropriate figure would need figuring out.

It's a bit confusing. Let me explain.

20 Minutes is a name, in this instance, given early into the conversation that has stuck. For comparison, let's imagine someone names a car Big Terrifying Murder Rabbit. When one refers to Big Terrifying Murder Rabbit, they do not mean a literal big, terrifying, murderous rabbit. They're referring to a car that was called that. In this instance, 20 minutes is just the sticking point of the discussion. I didn't come up with it, it just has stuck. I think this has caused confusion on your side, at some point people have taken this figure to be the literal figure of time it would take per my proposal. It isn't.

Okay, but that's just an assumption like Chariot & Dale said. Again, where's the visual or mathematical proof it actually took this long?
See here. The misunderstanding is worse off than I thought.

To actually reply to you Omnificence: as I've said, it is a figure Chariot invented. I assume the figure itself is arbitrary, it's a stand-in figure for whatever calculated timeframe would actually end up being used.
 
20m isn't the averaged, it's from
"Because the storm also dispersed across the horizon behind the POV, I'll add 20 km to the total distance and subtract the radius of the hole to factor in how fast it was initially going
Going frame by frame at 60 FPS, it took from frame 12375 to 12946 for the storm to no longer be visible, assuming the crowd shot of the Murfles dancing to be when it goes away.
12946 - 12375 = 571 frames or 9.517 seconds
(43252.259 - 18188.442) / 9.517 = 2633.584 m/s"

Which, would require about 20m to disperse the storm. This is the speed Bambu has argued extensively to use.
The first time it was mentioned to me was by Chariot, here, after my first post on the subject. I suppose I would not wish to explain his work for him. It's just sort of stuck in the conversation as a general term for my position- the actual timeframe would need calculating.
As below. To argue your stance, would be 20m. That was the speed you latched onto all through out.
. 20 minutes is an insanely short time! It's basically no time at all. This statement has no bearing on the displayed speed, the speed we can physically see, of the clouds.

The actual argument is that you're wrong, plainly and simply. It's taking 20 minutes. Or more, really,
You doubled down on it many times, if that isn't what you thought, you could've went "Hmm, I don't actually think it would be that long", but no, you confirmed it.

20. timeframe, stems from the speed you've been arguing this whole time to use, that being the
"we can determine how long it would take, based on how fast it was going from the beginning bit we see.". Which was said in the very first post of yours on this topic before I ever replied to you, which is what I was referring to initially.

I could comb over every post where you stated as much to use that, I may very well do so if this is somehow going to be shifted onto me here, but that's beside the point.
 
I stand by positions such as the one you've mentioned there, that 20 minutes would be a short timeframe. But you supplied the figure.

To get a legitimate figure, one would recalculate the feat with my other contentions taken into account, and then calculate timeframe based on that, I suppose.
 
See here. The misunderstanding is worse off than I thought.
I'm just asking you a question; no need to get defensive.
To actually reply to you Omnificence: as I've said, it is a figure Chariot invented. I assume the figure itself is arbitrary, it's a stand-in figure for whatever calculated timeframe would actually end up being used.
But didn't we already find the amount of time it actually took or not? If we did, why are we using an assumption?
 
That's not defensive, it was indicating the point to Dale.

I'm just asking you a question; no need to get defensive.

But didn't we already find the amount of time it actually took or not? If we did, why are we using an assumption?
What time do you reckon we've figured out? This thread has largely been a back and forth as to whether 1 minute worked as an assumption or not- the vast majority of posts in this debate have been either "it works" or "it doesn't work". I'm unsure which figure you believe to be accepted.
 
What time do you reckon we've figured out? This thread has largely been a back and forth as to whether 1 minute worked as an assumption or not- the vast majority of posts in this debate have been either "it works" or "it doesn't work". I'm unsure which figure you believe to be accepted.
Well, if that's the only roadblock in this CRT, isn't there any other time interval besides 1 or 20 minutes we can use that we all will agree on? If we can, which one(s)? If not, why? And as an alternative, if it's at all possible, how can & why don't we try to calculate the exact amount of time it takes for these clouds to disperse?
 
What did I get myself into.
0dzy9f0vqjcc1.jpeg
 
Well, if that's the only roadblock in this CRT, isn't there any other time interval besides 1 or 20 minutes we can use that we all will agree on? If we can, which one(s)? If not, why? And as an alternative, if it's at all possible, how can & why don't we try to calculate the exact amount of time it takes for these clouds to disperse?
Possibly. Chariot's position is a lot of "it's less than 20 minutes", which on a literal level, may well be true.
 
So... let me get this straight.

The argument against chariot includes a 20 minute timeframe that was never shown, stated, or even implied, relying on a speed calc that could easily be wrong, and pretending that's more solid than just picking a speed we're shown in the calc and using that?

This argument shouldn't have gotten Past 3 posts of: "I think this speed is best!" "I think this is more accurate." "Okay. Leave it to a vote."
 
For the record, I still am on Chariot’s side in regards to the feat.

Ultimately, this is an argument about weather we should use one of the speeds directly shown despite its inconsistency with itself, or use the statement of the storm fully going away despite it being kind of vague. If I’m going to pick one of those, I’m going with what was most likely intended to be the case by the devs and, imo, assuming the storm was fully rid of by then simply requires the least amount of logical leaps and inferences. Yes, the storm could’ve still been dispersing and the statement wasn’t literal, Wario could’ve just waited awhile and we didn’t see it, but I mean, is that really what the devs and artists intended with this cutscene? Did they really go into the nitty gritty of “oh it’s technically not gone yet, the princess just said it’s currently going away” From what I can tell, what was intended was simply “the storm’s gone now” that’s it.

All I’m saying is sometimes it’s just better to go with the simplest answer given to us rather than getting lost in what possibly COULD be the answer.

Also it’s funny Bambu has been using my low-end speed calc despite being such a rough estimate in comparison.
 
So... let me get this straight.

The argument against chariot includes a 20 minute timeframe that was never shown, stated, or even implied, relying on a speed calc that could easily be wrong, and pretending that's more solid than just picking a speed we're shown in the calc and using that?
Yeah, pretty much.
 
So... let me get this straight.

The argument against chariot includes a 20 minute timeframe that was never shown, stated, or even implied, relying on a speed calc that could easily be wrong, and pretending that's more solid than just picking a speed we're shown in the calc and using that?

This argument shouldn't have gotten Past 3 posts of: "I think this speed is best!" "I think this is more accurate." "Okay. Leave it to a vote."
Aren't you guys the one presupposing a highballed timeframe with no evidence? This is a presupposition, you're presupposing that the map is equal to the dimensions of real earth distances, because it has continents. Alright, it's fine, we can let that slide. However, practically everything chariot claims is an assumption, he has no solid proof of alot of his claims.
 
Last edited:
Aren't you guys the one presupposing a highballed timeframe with no evidence? This is a presupposition, you're presupposing that the map is equal to the dimensions of real earth distances, because it has continents. Alright, it's fine, we can let that slide. However, practically everything chariot claims is an assumption, he has no solid proof of alot of his claims.
I don't care about what value is used, just as long as we aren't adding BS extrapolation on top of it.

Honest to god downgrade Mario to like 8-A for all I care lmfao
 
However, practically everything chariot claims is an assumption, he has no solid proof of his claims.
Hol up there.
The final speed isn't an assumption, we see it, this is solid proof in that it factually occurred on screen and we see the distance in which it did so in the time it did so.
What they say isn't an assumption, assuming what they say isn't true is an assumption.
The fact the globe literally doesn't have storm clouds on it anymore isn't an assumption, we see that, it's factual proof.
The velocity changes, we see this, the fact we see this is solid proof.
Wario was always there, even passes through there in the fight itself which we see, that is solid proof.
Etc.
There's way more stuff that's been discussed, yapped, yadda yadda you get it.

Everything I've said, is backed by what actually happens, or the context in the scene, or even just the game itself, I will elaborate more tomorrow but don't be saying that now.
But absolutely nothing I've said is an actual assumption, it's all rooted in evidence, some of which is not only objective but has been conceded as such being true.

Everything I've argued for is to avoid extra or needless assumptions, let alone "practically everything I've said". I would like you to point out what you think is an assumption so I can know what, exactly, it is that you have contention with.
 
Tbh I started and then realised I ain't replying to allat, just give me your reasoning and I'll explain why I think it's bunk.
 
Tbh I started and then realised I ain't replying to allat, just give me your reasoning and I'll explain why I think it's bunk.
You said practically everything was an assumption.
Actually give reason. Don't just enter a convo and go "yep, everything said is an assumption", and then go "eh i dont wanna elaborate, you do it".

Like, give my reasoning for what exactly? I don't know what it is you're talking about to even say or to begin with or where to start? You won't say, how am I supposed to work with that? Am I just supposed to repeat literally everything that's been said this thread because I'm just supposed to guess what it is you have a contention with? I mean I could, but the plan was to not do that and bullet point format to make it concise under the assumption everyone already knows most of the specifics, but as I'm just guessing now, making an excessively long post is still going to require you to "reply to all that", either way (If the plan is to reply to that, I would like to actually account for the contentions ahead of time as to not extend the thread further with extra back and forth either).
Save us both the trouble here and actually point out what exactly you claimed is an assumption, or "bunk", apparently.

You made the claim it was all an assumption, it is only fair that you actually elaborate on what exactly it is that's an assumption. Surely it can't be everything despite your claim given a good handful of stuff isn't even up for debate and is quite literally just what happens in the game.
 
Last edited:
Am I just supposed to repeat literally everything that's been said this thread
Yes please, in a shortened version.
You made the claim it was all an assumption, it is only fair that you actually elaborate on what exactly it is that's an assumption. Surely it can't be everything despite your claim given a good handful of stuff isn't even up for debate and is quite literally just what happens in the game.
Do you know what the definition of lazy is? It's defined as vzearr.
 
So... let me get this straight.

The argument against chariot includes a 20 minute timeframe that was never shown, stated, or even implied, relying on a speed calc that could easily be wrong, and pretending that's more solid than just picking a speed we're shown in the calc and using that?

This argument shouldn't have gotten Past 3 posts of: "I think this speed is best!" "I think this is more accurate." "Okay. Leave it to a vote."
Chariot invented the 20 minute timeframe, man. I don't have an actual proposed timeframe. The argument against Chariot is that his timeframe is wrong. CGMs don't actually need to provide the correct math- my vote is that it is wrong. There's a whole explanation somewhere in here if you want to scroll up rather than this reductive stuff you're doing here. It's not far up, I gave my short version, Chariot gave a rebuttal that's a bit longer but still worth reading.
 
I'm going to ask here because it is easier than brute force looking for it. The tree at 3:38, is there a calc somewhere that determines its size, or is there some means of gleaning that? Height, specifically.
 
I'm going to ask here because it is easier than brute force looking for it. The tree at 3:38, is there a calc somewhere that determines its size, or is there some means of gleaning that? Height, specifically.
We already have the islands measurements, its how chariot gave the differing speeds to begin with, he like sent the px scaling
 
We already have the islands measurements, its how chariot gave the differing speeds to begin with, he like sent the px scaling
Great, reckon I'll search through the thread for that.
 
Chariot invented the 20 minute timeframe, man. I don't have an actual proposed timeframe.
"Hey here is where the 20m timeframe came from-"
"Wow you invented it".

This wasn't even 24h ago.

Knock it off Bambu. The 20m timeframe came from the speed you were actively arguing, this was said many times, you doubled down on it, affirmed it to be the objective truth numerous times in that 100% must be taking longer than 20m, if not longer even. Do I have to go back and quote you saying as much?
 
"Knock it off" I linked to where it came from, it was your statement of twenty minutes. The speed could be calculated differently and it would yield a different timeframe. I don't have an actual set-in-stone calculation for the speed, I contend that the speed is incorrect, the 20 Minute thing has just stuck as (I thought) a reference to my position. Given that it is hailed from something I didn't make and was presented by someone who wasn't me, I didn't think we were legitimately presenting that as the figure. You knock it off, man. You keep telling me what my position is when it's wrong. That is what a strawman is, for the record- rebuking a point I don't maintain.
 
I'm making an executive decision. I tried to uphold such a decision before but it kept coming back around.

I don't want to bicker about Mario forever. I don't have any personal care regarding this and it is instilling in me a bitterness that doesn't make me want to engage with this hobby. It is a hobby, and at times one must have fun with a hobby, rather than administrate it.

I reject the calculation as it is now. I have elaborated as to why I do that quite a lot. Individuals such as Clover, Vzearr, and Dale are free to weigh in as they please. It has been alleged I have tried to silence their opinions in regards to the calc matter- this is not true, nor do I wish to discredit the opinions of other calc group members. Evaluate it as you like, my rejection stands. I do not see further discussion being very constructive given this, the last thing I could do here is offer a recalculation that would better fit my standards but that does not fall to me- it falls to me to evaluate it when such a thing comes along.

If I am misunderstood at this point, as I suspect I am currently, then it seems futile to try to rectify it, given the attempts at rectifying that have already been had. It is what it is.

As for the greater thread: if it comes to pass that CGM votes allow this calculation being changed from 7-C to Low 6-B, I believe this would at least help the argument of the OP. I'm not sure if it would be the most consistent Mario tier (I don't know enough about Mario to judge that), but I would feel it less ridiculous to use the High 6-A end, at least, and I would pivot from disagree to neutral in that scenario. Should this recalc not be accepted, I would remain at disagree for the time being.

In what I reckon will be a popular move, I'm out.
 
"Knock it off" I linked to where it came from, it was your statement of twenty minutes.
The 20m stems from the speed you argued and affirmed to be used throughout the thread.
AT that speed, it would take 20m. This had been explained multiple times throughout.
The speed could be calculated differently and it would yield a different timeframe.
Correct. That doesn't change the fact you constantly argued for a specific speed though.
I don't have an actual set-in-stone calculation for the speed, I contend that the speed is incorrect, the 20 Minute thing has just stuck as (I thought) a reference to my position.

"20 minutes isn't bunk, you just believe it is.", this page alone. Whether you agree with it now, doesn't change the fact you argued for it earlier in the thread, framing it as something that came out of nowhere, is not good form.

Given that it is hailed from something I didn't make and was presented by someone who wasn't me, I didn't think we were legitimately presenting that as the figure.
How in the world? You constantly argued for the initial clearing, numerous times, I'll go and quote you as such if need be. It's been stated dozens of times.

At that speed it would take 20m. You can not say you weren't arguing 20m but argued a speed in which it would take 20m. You either argue both, or neither. You can't have one without the other.
You knock it off, man. You keep telling me what my position is when it's wrong.
No, I'm actually just looking into your arguments and how and what they would actually entail if implemented.
That is what a strawman is, for the record- rebuking a point I don't maintain.
You maintained using that speed for the longest time.

You also, quite literally, did. What do words like these mean?
"20 minutes is an insanely short time! It's basically no time at all. This statement has no bearing on the displayed speed, the speed we can physically see, of the clouds.
The actual argument is that you're wrong, plainly and simply. It's taking 20 minutes. Or more, really,"

This is you, this is the second post no less, you stating it's going to take 20 minutes, if not longer, and it not taking 20 minutes is wrong. You did this many times throughout, I can grab more examples of you stating 20 minutes as an objectivity coupled with you wanting to use the speed which would result in 20m. The 20 minutes was explained many times throughout where it came from, that being the timeframe the clouds would take to disperse using the speed you argued for initially, and then off and on again for some reason. Do not frame this as being some made up value that stuck. If you didn't believe it to be true, don't go "Oh but it's 100% taking 20m" and what not, how in the world is anyone going to take that to mean anything but exactly that? And if you don't believe it to be true, don't argue for a speed that is directly tied to it.
 
quick reminder that Low 6-B doesn't really support High 6-A, with how far it is from it

if anything it's a new highest feat for the current ratings
 
Back
Top