• 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.

What Is Calc Stacking

Matthew_Schroeder

Matthew_Schroeder

VS Battles
Retired
32,327
20,214
Hello everyone.

Recent discussions within the wiki regarding Bleach have led to a wider debate about Calc Stacking as a whole, what exactly it is, and how we can better define it. And it was decided that it would be best to give the subject its own thread rather than derail the old one further.

Alright, with that said, what is Calc Stacking ?

Our current page defines it rather vaguely as:

"Calc stacking refers to the practice of using results from one calculation in order to calculate other feats.
Usually calc stacking is believed to be flawed, so that calculations that use it should be disregarded almost always. Usually people try to use it for calculating characters speed, but also different uses are imaginable.
The reason it is usually disregarded is because it has shown itself inconsistent many times and usually gives inflated results. Through the method any long running franchises could also scale their stats infinitely upwards without actually ever showing any feats in the range they are listed."
Seems rather simple, no? Calc Stacking is literally grabbing the results of one calculation and applying to another, therefore stacking the numbers and wielding unrealistic results in the process.

A classic example is when a character's projectile is calculated at a determined speed, and another dodges it, and you use the number from the first calculation to get the second. And so on and so on.

This obviously gets very problematic very quickly.

However, some have claimed that if the resulting number doesn't come from a calculation, but rather from a feat that requires no calculation, or a stated value, than it isn't calc-stacking.

I personally don't entirely disagree with the sentiment, but I don't think it should be generalized either. Utilizing a numerical value obtained from one feat, and applying it to another is the very definition of calc-stacking (I.e, stacking the results of various feat calculations).

Of course, depending on how direct the stated / obtained values are, one can easily apply it to another feat. For example:

  • A Sci-Fi Universe's weapon is stated to be shot at Mach 20, or Lightspeed, and another character reacts to a shot from this same weapon
  • A shield tanks a 5 Kiloton Missile hitting it, and another character casually breaks through the shield
  • A character outspeeds a flying vehicle which in another instance was shown crossing the United Stated in 10 minutes.
None of these examples constitute cases of calc-stacking. In all of them, the statements and the feats are direct. They don't require much steps taken, nor many calculations beyond just the one. In some cases they don't even require a calculation. They're just feats.

However, take the following examples:

  • Character A can fire cloud-to-ground lightning. Character B reacts to said strikes in battle. Character B then gets more powerful through training / transformation. Character C later crosses in 1 second a distance Character B crossed in one day, so you apply the obtained speed based on the lightning feat all the way back for his new feat in order to obtain a distance to calculate Character C's speed.
  • A character reacts in a timeframe of less than a nanosecond in scene A. Said character also reacts to lightspeed projectiles in scene B. Said character is shown using a pistol in scene C, so using the first two feats you say that the pistol is firing FTL+ bullets.
It should be obviously apparent what the issue with these two examples is: While neither require calculations in order to obtain the initial results, they still have to stack the values through multiple feats before applying it to a calculation much later.

These require many assumptions as well as going through many feats to obtain a result, while the former examples are self-evident feats.

And I think that's a better term to understand the issue: It's the Feats, not the Calculations, that are at the heart of this.

Calc Stacking, much like Multiplier Stacking (Using a plethora of multipliers to get a character several orders of magnitudes higher than any of his feats indicate), are symptoms of bad and wanky scaling, which is a much larger problem.

You might call both Calc Stacking and Multiplier Stacking branches of a wider "Feat Stacking" issue, if you will..

So basically, Calc Stacking can still exist even in cases where there is technically no initial Calc.

So what do I propose?

Honestly? I think the Calc Stacking page should be modified / edited to better explain the issue, and also incorporate examples of Stacking that don't relate to calcs, such as multiplier stacking, scaling chains, etc.

What do you guys think?

EDIT: Please don't derail this thread with discussions pertaining to Bleach individually. Also, be nice to each other.
 
I'm all for this, people get a LOT of misconceptions about what Calc Stacking inherently is. If you have to calc multiple steps along the way (speed of object 1 to speed of object 2 to speed of object 3 and so on) then it is probably calc stacking. For example, meteor to firearm projectile speed to dodge speed.

But if a gun just fires MHS+ speed projectiles, stated flatout (Mach 2000 or whatever is stated, just an example) it is 100% usable.

Tl;DR, do this.
 
First, I think this should be highlighted if possible since it seems pretty important. Second, i'll wait until later to say what I want to say about this, but first i'd like to ask.

Why exactly is Calc-Stacking actually a bad thing? Don't get me wrong here. Im not asking for it to be suddenly allowed. If it's a rule for a reason, im not pushing for it to be undone and I don't mind banning it. That being said, I never actually understood the bad thing about calc-stacking to make it problematic honestly. The rule for Calc-stacking has been here long before I first came to VBW, so I have 0 idea on why it's banned, but was just asking this out of curiousity.
 
@Kukui

Just to give an example, one could easily get to something silly like shell-firing pistols being MFTL+ via calc-stacking. Or stacking results of speed calculations until your characters are FTL based on hypersonic feats.

Calc Stacking inflates the results of feats and leads to some very wacky results. It's the same reason we don't allow to jump a ton of tiers based on multipliers alone.

Also, it is highlighted.
 
Turbo summed it up pretty nicely.

There's also the fact that characters won't always be depicted at a level of strength. We do this a lot already with comicbook characters, but for a lot of more linear media we seem to ignore it:

If a character lifts a building with ease, but struggles to lift a tank later, that doesn't mean the tank weights 100,000+ tons, it just means we found an inconsistency. But with "Calc Stacking" one could say that that tank is 100,000+ tons, and then treat another character breaking it with a punch as a 100,000+ ton feat.
 
Hmm okay I think I see why its bad but then let me ask this.

What if there's a character that does a speed feat that's, lets say, light speed and it results in [insert here] numbers from a calc to get SoL. Those numbers would mathematically represent how fast the character from the feat goes. But then later on, this character goes through training and/or power ups and does a feat that makes him 2x faster than before.

If we wanted to calc the latter characters 2nd feat to see how fast it was, why wouldn't the results from the characters former feats be used if said character is confirmed to be 2x faster when doing the newer feat?
 
I'm confused with your example, Kukui. If a character perfoms a feat that makes him roughly 1c, and then later performs a feat that is roughly 2c, than each calculation stands on its own?

Unless the second feat is him speedblitzing a character he previously couldn't, in which case it is rather unquantifiable other than it being decidedly FTL to an unknown degree.
 
I can understand wanting to avoid an inflation of a feat, but it's dishonest to not use a canon number in a feat. Character A can move at X speed per canon numbers in the series, then it takes Character A a Y amount of time to cross a distance. It shouldn't be seen as calc stacking to determine the distance given we have canon numbers for all the variables.

Which seems hypocrtical to me since when in regards to pixel calcing using characters with canon heights. When trying to determine the size of a crater a character made or the size of anything, if there is a character with a canon height, we use them to pixel calc the size of what we are trying to determine.

If anything, it would seem that the crux you are trying to avoid is feat stacking, which seems dishonest as a wiki that tries to be accurate in regards to series.
 
I don't think you understand, IMade. Canon numbers are fine and good, but when the original number and the feat trying to be calculated are removed by several characters and individual feats, we run into a problem, specially when it is rather sketchy to assume that a character will be maintaining the same level of speed in every scene thereafter.

And if the feat's results can be calculated through other, more direct methods, than those are likely to be closer to the truth, even if they contradict the previously given numbers.

It's the FTL+ bullets example I gave. Just because a character has FTL feats, doesn't mean that when it is deflecting bullets it will be moving at FTL speeds. Warhammer has a lot of examples of this, just out of the top of my heads. A lot of characters who scale to FTL things still use guns.
 
I have a question for an example.

Calc involves a character dodging a projectile.

This projectile is shown to be capable of blitzing a bullet timer.

For the sake of the calc, can the fact that the projectile is demonstrably faster than a bullet be used for crunching in numbers?
 
@Ryu

Potentially? It could be a low-end (If it's like, a real life gun), or it could simply be a case of an advanced weapon (Sci-fi gun).

It would depend on the actual feat. But I'm going to say that it could work.

For a similar example, Warhammer 40,000 has a feat where a Bolter round crossed about 3 kilometres and hits a guy who's falling from a 2 meter height before he hits the ground. Something around Mach 10 or so in speed.

Despite how direct this feat is, I am very uncertain with using it for calculations where characters dodge / deflect Bolter rounds. For those I prefer to use the statement that Bolters are Hypersonic (Mach 5+)
 
Canon numbers are fine and good, but when the original number and the feat trying to be calculated are removed by several characters and individual feats, we run into a problem, specially when it is rather sketchy to assume that a character will be maintaining the same level of speed in every scene thereafter.

We have a reason or statement showing they are maintaining that level of speed, it should be sage then since no calc must be done. If the original number and feat which the numbers comes from/is give is not removed by several characters and individual feats, it should also be safe.

And if the feat's results can be calculated through other, more direct methods, than those are likely to be closer to the truth, even if they contradict the previously given numbers.

So you would prefer to calc a feat than use the canon given number essentially?

It's the FTL+ bullets example I gave. Just because a character has FTL feats, doesn't mean that when it is deflecting bullets it will be moving at FTL speeds. Warhammer has a lot of examples of this, just out of the top of my heads. A lot of characters who scale to FTL things still use guns.

That analogy doesn't match up though. Are the FTL feats derived from calcs or canon numbers? Also, the deflection would have to be determined with a calc.

I'm talking about a character with a canon number to their feat, then applying that to something they interact with to actually calc and determine the application.
 
@IMAde

1) Not necessarily.

2) Canon Numbers can often be contradicted by calculations, yes. Often calculations and even feats will wield results far higher than canon numbers (There is a Kirby Statement somewhere saying he's only Mach 6)... But they can also wield far lower results (Flashy Flash from OPM being Mach 5 in a scene meant to demonstrate how much faster than everyone he is)

3) In this case I'm going to say that they are not based on calcs, but statements of reaction time, and the speed of something else the character reacted. Needless to say, that still doesn't mean that the projectile-based weapon they are using in another scene is FTL+. That's just an inconsistency and you have to life with that in fiction.
 
1) Why would it not be safe?

2) So despite the canon number that we could safely use, you would prefer to calc and use the derived calc'd which is why it becomes calc stacking?

3) If it's the same projectile-based weaponry, it would be safe to say it is FTL+ if it was given a canon statement saying it was FTL+ before.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
@Kukui
Just to give an example, one could easily get to something silly like shell-firing pistols being MFTL+ via calc-stacking. Or stacking results of speed calculations until your characters are FTL based on hypersonic feats.

Calc Stacking inflates the results of feats and leads to some very wacky results. It's the same reason we don't allow to jump a ton of tiers based on multipliers alone.

Also, it is highlighted.
Click to expand...
That's what I personally don't understand about the calcstacking rule....

Clearly, the "negative" canotation regarding Calc-stacking would not be a thing irl. The scientific community won't disregard the result of said methods if tge actions are true.

In this case, Calc-Stacking is literally going against both the feats and science when this isn't a thing irl.

I can understand denying a calc as an outlier if it's shown being vastly above the norm of a characters feats or a one time thing with later feats contradicting the original feat that's vastly above the norm, but aside from that, calc-stacking in general is nonsensical imho.
 
1) Because if the feat can be quantified through other methods, it calls into question the necessity to take a speed feat from way before and apply to it. At that point you're stacking results.

It's why people don't use the fact that Kid Goku could move at Lightning-speed to then calculate the size of the Snake Way, so they can get a ridiculously high speed for Goku when he crossed Snake Way in 2 days. In this case the narrative already provides us with values.

Said values are silly in light of the myriad better speed feats, but they are there. Fiction is inconsistent.

2) Not what I mean. I mean that canon numbers can often be contradicted, for better or worse. Even feats which an author writes with the intention of seeing fast can sometimes be slower than feats he randomly wrote way before (OPM has this).

3) Different projectile-based weapons.
 
This basically seems like it amounts to substantially updating the info page to more accurately represent what exactly the issues are that discouraging calc stacking is intended to address; along with showing clear examples where "would-be calc stacking" can be legitimately used. I dunno about all the specifics but on the face of it, this seems like a good idea.

However, I don't think that "feat stacking" is inherently bad. IMO if it has enough indirect support, the results should be considered; of course, the burden of proof should increase with the degree of separation from the initial feat.
 
My bad, I was a bit unclear.

The feat stacking I'm referencing in the second part of my first comment is specifically feat stacking where there is a notably greater degree of separation and more ambiguity than the examples you gave as basically A-OK.

My point there was really just that I think even in cases like that, there should be some amount of indirect evidence that can be determined on a case-by-case basis and deemed sufficient for the results to be accepted.
 
Much respect Matt. That was a very well done explanation that details what calc stacking is and how it can negatively affect scaling future calcs.
 
I also think that Matthew seems to make sense, but you probably need to ask the current calc group members and DontTalkDT to help you out with rewriting the calc stacking page.
 
This looks good, speaking of which; I listed a full examples of feats I considered "Calc Stacking," though was unsure if that was considered the best word. I know that an attack or weapon was calculated at 3 Megajoules, and character is able to take up to 20 consecutive hits from that same attack or weapons, and durability gets treated as 60 Megajoules. I know that's also fallacious, but was told that wasn't really Calc Stacking. I guess that's Multiplier stacking?

And another example was Vaporization of a human being 300 Megajoules. Someone a while back tried to take Character A's durability, divide that by the durability of a normal human to get X, and then multiplied that to get 300,000,000X as the energy required to vaporize character A. That also sounds like the same fallacy as the example listed above.
 
I agree.

I think that one of the explanations could be that the calculated values themselves have a wide error range (since we make a lot of assumptions and neglections), so using those values which have a big error range to another calc just increases the error range and makes the calc unreliable.
 
1) I understand stacking results which leads to inflation, but we wouldn't be stacking results if we took canon numbers. We aren't taking a result, we would be taking a canon numbers that didn't have to calculated nor determined.

2) I can agree with canon numbers being contradicted at times. But if they aren't contradicted, they should be safe to use. The feat in question we were talking about is like this.

3) If they are different projectile weapons then it makes sense they aren't the same speed unless there is a feat of them being of similar speed or a statement saying they are the same speed.
 
Let me start by saying that calc stacking and applying multipliers are very different things for me. Reason being that one big reason calc stacking is not legitimate is that it assumes the source is consistent in its feat depiction, which it is not. For applying multipliers the consistency argument would on the other hand not matter, hence one has to debate that issue differently in some regards.

We should probably have a page explaining how to deal with multipliers. I am mostly neutral regarding the issue, but one has to keep in mind that things like time slow and speed buff abilities mainly function through multipliers. So not applying multipliers at all would probably not be the ideal solution.

Character A can fire cloud-to-ground lightning. Character B reacts to said strikes in battle. Character B then gets more powerful through training / transformation. Character C later crosses in 1 second a distance Character B crossed in one day, so you apply the obtained speed based on the lightning feat all the way back for his new feat in order to obtain a distance to calculate Character C's speed.
The way that is written I would say it falls under current calc stacking rules. If you get stats from character B reacting a calc is involved, even if you don't explicitly do it. Hence the second calculation would be stacked, due to calculating from a prior one.

If people act like they get stats from such feats without calculation that is an issue of "hiding" calculations. Adding a note regarding that to the calc stacking page is probably a good idea.

Some similar scenarios would fall more under multiplier rules, as something like "Can run any distance A can run in half the time" is basically a multiplier statements.

A character reacts in a timeframe of less than a nanosecond in scene A. Said character also reacts to lightspeed projectiles in scene B. Said character is shown using a pistol in scene C, so using the first two feats you say that the pistol is firing FTL+ bullets.
That is just a non-sequitur, isn't it? That reactions don't scale to attack speed should be clear and isn't really about stacking, or not? However if the character can not react to the bullets then FTL should be fine, due to reacting to lightspeed attacks.

Using reaction time for figuring out speed would result in calc stacking, though.


Sooo... a Multiplier page should be made (That requires debating some other details as well, I think) and "hiding" calculations should be mentioned on the calc stacking page. Anything not covered by that?

DarkDragonMedeus said:
I know that an attack or weapon was calculated at 3 Megajoules, and character is able to take up to 20 consecutive hits from that same attack or weapons, and durability gets treated as 60 Megajoules. I know that's also fallacious, but was told that wasn't really Calc Stacking. I guess that's Multiplier stacking?
Click to expand...
Entirely different issue, actually. The principle is "Attack Potency doesn't stack". It is a different issue, because the reason it isn't accepted is different. Essentially there never was a reason for that to be true in the first place, fiction or not. If you hit a wall and you don't damage it, hitting it more will still not damage it.

And another example was Vaporization of a human being 300 Megajoules. Someone a while back tried to take Character A's durability, that by the durability of a normal human to get X, and then multiplied that to get 300,000,000X as the energy required to vaporize character A.

Yeah, those cases are kinda strange. There are various problems with that, starting with the fact that the durability is probably calculated, meaning calc stacking is applied. The general scientific inaccuracy is of course another main point. Not sure if I would put it together with problems regarding multipliers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D.bunk01
Calc stacking and multipliers
Replies
1
Views
460
Suigetsuhyugs
Suigetsuhyugs
KingNanaya
Question about calcs and calc stacking
Replies
12
Views
1K
KingNanaya
KingNanaya
Arc7Kuroi
One Piece Thunder Bagua Calc Stacking
Replies
19
Views
2K
Agnaa
Agnaa
ShigarakiShimura
Is this calc stacking?
Replies
4
Views
851
Vzearr
Vzearr
Zefra3011
  • Locked
Calc Stacking in Tokyo Revengers
25 26 27
Replies
1K
Views
31K
RoggerReggor
RoggerReggor
Back
Top