Why no Calc stacking?

[Damage3245]

You literally said that more calc stacking means more straying away from canon, which would imply calcing is straying away from canon. Why is it that making a calc for a guy dodging a bullet is fine, but if you stack the calc it just becomes invalid? If you end up with a sub-relativistic character getting tagged by a pistol, that would mean either there's an inconsistency or that the gun is sub relativistic


Everything is an assumption. You interpret fiction by reading it, then making a logical assumption based on whatever info you have.



The assumptions are literally based on the story

Everything you said may be true... but do you not understand that the less assumptions we have to work with, the better it is?

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Everything you said may be true... but do you not understand that the less assumptions we have to work with, the better it is?

How many assumptions is too much? If we used calc stacking using 2 calcs, and each calc uses 1 assumption, does that make the calc stacking more invalid than 1 calc that uses 3 or 4 assumptions?

 

[Thelastmlg]

Someone needs to make a blog to show just how inflated Calc Stacking can get

Easist way is with speed blitzing, the amount of times i have seen people try calc stacking that

 

[Damage3245]

How many assumptions is too much? If we used calc stacking using 2 calcs, and each calc uses 1 assumption, does that make the calc stacking more invalid than 1 calc that uses 3 or 4 assumptions?

It's depends on whether or not the parameters can change between calculations or not. We do have some defined scenarios where "calc stacking" is permitted. See the section at the top of the page.

 

[Chariot190]

You literally said that more calc stacking means more straying away from canon, which would imply calcing is straying away from canon. Why is it that making a calc for a guy dodging a bullet is fine, but if you stack the calc it just becomes invalid? If you end up with a sub-relativistic character getting tagged by a pistol, that would mean either there's an inconsistency or that the gun is sub relativistic

Calcing is straying away from canon, the more assumptions made, the less precise it's going to be, but in the case of standard calcs, the majority of the default information is given by the author themselves, it's just us who puts that info together to get a value.
Dodging a bullet calc is straightforward, the intent on paper obviously is "this dude dodged bullet, he fast", and you calc what you see cool.
But while straightforward the fact remains the author probably didn't have that exact numerical value in mind, even if it's in that general ballpark.
So what happens if you take the approximation and do another calc with that as the foundation? You add an extra layer of presumptions, meaning the end result strays even further from the source material, the more complex the calc, the more it has that potential, and when you start layering calcs, it gets fucky by an exponential amount.

Calc stacking is in fact straying away from canon, it's the difference between an approximation and what is effectively a game of telephone but with calcs.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Calcing is straying away from canon, the more assumptions made, the less precise it's going to be, but in the case of standard calcs, the majority of the default information is given by the author themselves, it's just us who puts that info together to get a value.
Dodging a bullet calc is straightforward, the intent on paper obviously is "this dude dodged bullet, he fast", and you calc what you see cool.
But while straightforward the fact remains the author probably didn't have that exact numerical value in mind, even if it's in that general ballpark.
So what happens if you take the approximation and do another calc with that as the foundation? You add an extra layer of presumptions, meaning the end result strays even further from the source material, the more complex the calc, the more it has that potential, and when you start layering calcs, it gets fucky by an exponential amount.

Calc stacking is in fact straying away from canon, it's the difference between an approximation and what is effectively a game of telephone but with calcs.

How many assumptions do you think is too much?

But while straightforward the fact remains the author probably didn't have that exact numerical value in mind, even if it's in that general ballpark.

Author intent is just as valid as reader's intent. Both get their interpretation from reading the text. Its not like the author's mere intent can change what's shown in their work

 

[Chariot190]

Any assumption that isn't directly related to a feat in question is to much.
And even then, only if they're absolutely required, and then I might not even calc it if I have to assume anything to begin. I can't speak for others, but the less the better. Calcs on calcs by virtue of being calc on calc will always have assumptions that are there because a calc's end value is always an approximation, as in, an educated assumption. It's adding a layer, sometimes multiple that should not exist.

Author intent is just as valid as reader's intent. Both get their interpretation from reading the text. Its not like the author's mere intent can change what's shown in their work

You realize when people say death of the author they aren't talking about nerds on the internet doing funny meme math right?

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Any assumption that isn't directly related to a feat in question is to much.
And even then, only if they're absolutely required, and then I might not even calc it if I have to assume anything to begin. I can't speak for others, but the less the better. Calcs on calcs by virtue of being calc on calc will always have assumptions that are there because a calc's end value is always an approximation, as in, an educated assumption. It's adding a layer, sometimes multiple that should not exist.

You realize when people say death of the author they aren't talking about nerds on the internet doing funny meme math right?

What does directly related to a feat mean?

Calcs on calcs by virtue of being calc on calc will always have assumptions that are there because a calc's end value is always an approximation, as in, an educated assumption. It's adding a layer, sometimes multiple that should not exist.

Anything you interpret from reading a fictional work is an assumption. How many of these layers is too many?

You realize when people say death of the author they aren't talking about nerds on the internet doing funny meme math right?

Who is people and where did I mention death of the author?

 

[Chariot190]

What does directly related to a feat mean?

Directly related to the feat itself
If you don't know what that means, that's a you issue

Anything you interpret from reading a fictional work is an assumption. How many of these layers is too many?

Anything not related directly to the feat or scene at hand, I said that already
And no, interpreting "dude dodged bullet" as "dude dodged bullet" isn't an assumption, and if for some god forsaken reason you want to call it an assumption beyond all common sense, go ahead, there's your answer then, that's about the limit of what type of assumption should be allowed.

Who is people and where did I mention death of the author?

Literally the whole of modern society and modern educational systems for the past 3 centuries
And what the hell do you think death of the author means?
"Author intent is just as valid as reader's intent. Both get their interpretation from reading the text. Its not like the author's mere intent can change what's shown in their work" - You.

Is literally describing why the term exists, to ignore an author's intent and only take what the text conveys instead regardless of whether they meant for it to convey something or not. As in, they may as well be dead, all that matters is the material, which we already do, the issue is even death of the author applies within reason. If the author said the sky is blue and someone is like "hmm no, I think in this book it is green", that doesn't mean their interpretation is viable, it just means they a dumbass.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Directly related to the feat itself
If you don't know what that means, that's a you issue

Anything not related directly to the feat or scene at hand, I said that already
And no, interpreting "dude dodged bullet" as "dude dodged bullet" isn't an assumption, and if for some god forsaken reason you want to call it an assumption beyond all common sense, go ahead, there's your answer then, that's about the limit of what type of assumption should be allowed.

Literally the whole of modern society and modern educational systems for the past 3 centuries
And what the hell do you think death of the author means?
"Author intent is just as valid as reader's intent. Both get their interpretation from reading the text. Its not like the author's mere intent can change what's shown in their work" - You.

Is literally describing why the term exists, to ignore an author's intent and only take what the text conveys instead regardless of whether they meant for it to convey something or not. As in, they may as well be dead, all that matters is the material, which we already do, the issue is even death of the author applies within reason. If the author said the sky is blue and someone is like "hmm no, I think in this book it is green", that doesn't mean their interpretation is viable, it just means they a dumbass.

If you don't know what that means, that's a you issue

Do you mean we have to use 2 or more calcs to find it?

And no, interpreting "dude dodged bullet" as "dude dodged bullet" isn't an assumption

Yes it is, you read the work, and assumed that logically the character dodged the bullet by using clues. Everything is an assumption, its how accurate said assumption is that matters, which is why I think that matters, not the number of assumptions. If you're stacking more and more calcs, that's making more assumptions, but I think its wild to just arbitrarily label stacking calcs as invalid in general. It should depend on how accurate the assumptions are

Literally the whole of modern society and modern educational systems for the past 3 centuries And what the hell do you think death of the author means?

Why would I care what modern society thinks? And I don't remember much from Roland Barthes' death of the author essay, so I'm not talking about DOTA, all this is my opinion

If the author said the sky is blue and someone is like "hmm no, I think in this book it is green", that doesn't mean their interpretation is viable, it just means they a dumbass.

I think its possible for the author to be wrong. I'm confident that I know more than the authors of many works that I'm a fan of

 

[Chariot190]

Do you mean we have to use 2 or more calcs to find it?

Yeah, but I'd also say if even the base calc has a bunch of assumptions at that point it shouldn't be calced, just find something else to calc.

Yes it is, you read the work, and assumed that logically the character dodged the bullet by using clues. Everything is an assumption, its how accurate said assumption is that matters, which is why I think that matters, not the number of assumptions. If you're stacking more and more calcs, that's making more assumptions, but I think its wild to just arbitrarily label stacking calcs as invalid in general. It should depend on how accurate the assumptions are

No King, that's what we call common sense. If the author writes "sky is blue" and I go "oh hey the sky is blue", that is not an assumption, that's having basic human comprehension skills
And calc stacking will always fall into even your own ludicrous framework as a calc will always be an approximation, it will never, 100%, be completely accurate. The only time it would ever be 100% precise is if the source material literally listed off every single numerical value to use in said calc, which I have yet to see happen in any media.
It isn't arbitrary though, we have a concise ruling, that being taking a calc and using it as the foundation for another calc being where it stops, to be more precise, the actual rule is that for a calc, we only use what is directly related to that scene in question or within the scene.
If you take something from a different scene and apply it to the current scene, that is not allowed, that's the actual rule we follow, issue is calc stacking will always fall into that.

Why would I care what modern society thinks? And I don't remember much from Roland Barthes' death of the author essay, so I'm not talking about DOTA, all this is my opinion

Because you live in it and interact with people who are a part of it.
You don't have to care, in the same way people don't have to care about what you say either. But you're going to have to deal with it because the general majority thinking what a term entails vastly outweighs and supersedes your definition and we're going to be using that on this site.
And it doesn't quite matter if that's what you're talking about, that's what you wrote so that's what I interpreted it as, after all, death of the author.

I think its possible for the author to be wrong. I'm confident that I know more than the authors of many works that I'm a fan of

That just makes you come off as an ignorant and egotistical lad
Especially given my example being exceptionally straightfoward.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Asked to get this closed.


https://vsbattles.com/threads/all-purpose-request-thread-new-forum.107534/post-5274293

Time to wait

 

[Arkenis]

All this over not being able to do a bunch of math just to say "X characters is mftl+"

 

[Antvasima]

I have locked this thread after a request to do so.