- 15,332
- 7,563
Ant suggested this might be the best option.
The discussion is basically summed up here.
We found a discrepancy in Piccolo's profile. It links to a calc that has since been updated by the OBD. The timeframe in the calc was pulled from nowhere, while the timeframe in the newer, updated calc by Derpaholic is based on the rocks around the panel still freefaling when Piccolo blasts the moon, which means the timeframe is based upon something, at least.
The problem is, Lina Shields posted that in a blog a few months back and it had apparently been evaluated and rejected (not really?). But the calc we link in the profile was ALSO rejected here due to assuming the timeframe.
Then Matt told me to use RadicalMR's calc, which puts Piccolo at 5-B. After i told him this, he suddenly switched back to Chaos's calc and told me to evaluate it, because it was probably "the best way to go". I already did that, and it's an unreliable calculation
I'm strictly against cherry-picking calculations just because we disagree with the result. We have a calc putting Piccolo at extremely high end Low 5-B-, which would then make Raditz 5-B by the virtue of scaling, and then we have a calculation, by our calc group no less, that puts Piccolo at 5-B, thus scaling Raditz to 5-B too.
The other option is unreliable, as i said above, because it assumes the timeframe while Derpaholic's calc has a calced timeframe attached to it.
So, without cherrypicking anything, which one shall we use?
I personally think we should use Derpaholic's calculation, because Radical's calc technically assumes the timeframe as well.
NOTE: STAFF-ONLY
The discussion is basically summed up here.
We found a discrepancy in Piccolo's profile. It links to a calc that has since been updated by the OBD. The timeframe in the calc was pulled from nowhere, while the timeframe in the newer, updated calc by Derpaholic is based on the rocks around the panel still freefaling when Piccolo blasts the moon, which means the timeframe is based upon something, at least.
The problem is, Lina Shields posted that in a blog a few months back and it had apparently been evaluated and rejected (not really?). But the calc we link in the profile was ALSO rejected here due to assuming the timeframe.
Then Matt told me to use RadicalMR's calc, which puts Piccolo at 5-B. After i told him this, he suddenly switched back to Chaos's calc and told me to evaluate it, because it was probably "the best way to go". I already did that, and it's an unreliable calculation
I'm strictly against cherry-picking calculations just because we disagree with the result. We have a calc putting Piccolo at extremely high end Low 5-B-, which would then make Raditz 5-B by the virtue of scaling, and then we have a calculation, by our calc group no less, that puts Piccolo at 5-B, thus scaling Raditz to 5-B too.
The other option is unreliable, as i said above, because it assumes the timeframe while Derpaholic's calc has a calced timeframe attached to it.
So, without cherrypicking anything, which one shall we use?
I personally think we should use Derpaholic's calculation, because Radical's calc technically assumes the timeframe as well.
NOTE: STAFF-ONLY
