- 4,706
- 1,637
- Thread starter
- #241
Not sure if he (Ultima) actually agrees with the calc or not so I will put him at neutralYou forgot to add Qwased and Ultima to the agreements.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not sure if he (Ultima) actually agrees with the calc or not so I will put him at neutralYou forgot to add Qwased and Ultima to the agreements.
The calc was accepted on the grounds that the math is logically sound IIRC as well as the fact it means we won’t be able to apply the calc if it get rejected due to the multipler being calculated for it. It is even shown as clear as day on the calculation.Bro it's normal ass pixel scaling the **** kind of objection do you think Ultima might have? It's also not relevant, the calc is ******* accepted and Ultima isn't a god damn calc member. This discussion is on if people agree with the application, nothing else.
Without any specifics, it is hard to say.Question, how much would the total multiplier be?
wdymQuestion, how much would the total multiplier be?
So, the calc is already accepted, and I come here, and say I agree with Tago with regards to its usability. Seems to naturally follow that I think it is fine to use overall, as of now, no?The calc was accepted on the grounds that the math is logically sound IIRC
Also, I have to taken into consideration of this reply.Well the point isn't debunked, but contested. Debunked would be like "If you zoom in really closely you can see tiny numbers on the Y-Axis that shows the graph amounts" or something.
The argument isn't that. Its that at the moment the AP that they have is split between the two of them since its presumed they equally contributed to the explosion. The argument is that since they punched each other and were at the epicenter of the explosion, they should instead scale to the full value of the feat rather than the standard half and half like with MHA or something. Its not 2x the feat its just saying they shouldn't be 0.5x the feat.
Actually I might been mistaken as @DontTalkDT disagreed with the calc and I think @Agnaa as well.So, the calc is already accepted, and I come here, and say I agree with Tago with regards to its usability. Seems to naturally follow that I think it is fine to use overall, as of now, no?
Let me point out this ************ Hammer put someone as disagreeing if they liked a post of Agnaa's but refused to put someone as agreeing if they made an entire ******* evaluation of the calc being right. What a shitty thread creator holy hell.
I literally put @Qawsedf234 in there in the Op. Also let me add Ultima reality to the listLet me point out this ************ Hammer put someone as disagreeing if they liked a post of Agnaa's but refused to put someone as agreeing if they made an entire ******* evaluation of the calc being right. What a shitty thread creator holy hell.
Again, I taking my time. I don’t want to being pushed here since I want to makes sure.I agree that HammerStrike hasn't been the best at accurately listing the results of this thread but please try to be civil.
I'm more neutral than in agreement. I think it can be used but the people against it have made some very solid point regarding the lack of a properly defined Y-axis and why that's important to any graph calculation.but are you actually neutral or just agreement?
No you only want to make sure if it's the agreeing side.Again, I taking my time. I don’t want to being pushed here since I want to makes sure.
Why is Maverick in disagree if she's yet to say anything in this thread?Again, I taking my time. I don’t want to being pushed here since I want to makes sure.
I was assuming she agreed with Andy with key points, but I will cross her out then.Why is Maverick in disagree if she's yet to say anything in this thread?
Anyway, what is your overall stance on this calc? Neutral, Agree, or disagree?Why is Maverick in disagree if she's yet to say anything in this thread?
I did put you in the agreement actually before editing it out actually. That was just me being confused.You can't be serious. You put Maverick in disagreeing for liking posts but are unsure if I agree despite me being in clear favor of the multiplier since the first page?
If it wasn't clear, I agree with using the graph. Though I'm unsure you should consider me a staff member.
It is anyways only staff vote tho.Yeah, don't count somebody's vote unless they've actually commented in the thread regarding it.
Just liking posts isn't enough.
Have your stance change or are you staying with the agreement camp?Yeah, don't count somebody's vote unless they've actually commented in the thread regarding it.
Just liking posts isn't enough.
Same goes for you, but have you change your stance or just staying with agreement? As there was a debate over specific details of the calc.Well I'm of the opinion that this is fine to use.
I thought member agreement won't be accepted, lol.Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask, but if the calc does get accepted, would it be given a Possibly rating or would it be a hard upgrade? Given the amount of debate over whether it is symbolic or literal it doesn't seem pretty solid.
Honestly if it was a 'possibly' I'd probably agree with the opposition.
It is, but I have to check for any change of stances regarding the calcs, 2 ppl are currently neutral (Including the one who made the calc), 3 disagreed with it while 3 agreed with it.I thought member agreement won't be accepted, lol.
Crimson only agree with your points and someone else as well even though it doesn’t debunk the opposition’s points ngl, but I added it anyway.You didn't add Crimson to the list of agreements btw.
how the hell this worksHe considered a honorary staff member
From what I heard, Antvasima consider him a honorary staff member some time ago, but I have to check anyway.how the hell this works
like wtf
Well the main premise was the legitimacy of the multiplier regardless of what happens to the original calc.Same goes for you, but have you change your stance or just staying with agreement? As there was a debate over specific details of the calc.
I have no clue how is it relevant, he is not any more staff, therefore it should not really count in staff votes.From what I heard, Antvasima consider him a honorary staff member some time ago, but I have to check anyway.
Crimson only agree with your points and someone else as well even though it doesn’t debunk the opposition’s points ngl, but I added it anyway.
Also technically a FRA as well, but if I am to include the calc members opinions. 1 is neutral, 1 disagreeing with it (Donttalk was a calc member group IIRC or at least formerly, but still counts) plus the one who made the calc decided to switch to neutral.