• 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.

Calc Stacking problems

Firephoenixearl

Firephoenixearl

20,509
1,590
So apparently there is something with our applications of calc stacking in that:

"It is not applicable under any circumstance"

Even if it is perfectly reasonable, it's still not applicable. And where this mostly shows flaws is in the fact that we even consider cases where there is only 1 calculation involved "calc stacking". So since this came to be a rather dicussed problem in a certain CRT and I do not know any other cases i will just simplify and try to generalize the example. So let's say:

  • Character X has a Massively Hypersonic+ attack (let's say lightning speed, we need this because it is narratively stated and logical speed. So character X can launch lightning)
  • Character Y could dodge X's attack at close range (This is to avoid stuff like predicting, so it was just raw speed, lightning was lunched, Y dodged it at close quarters through his speed).
  • Character Z then attacks Y with an attack that doesn't have "speed" stated, however, even though the Z's attack is launched at the same range as that of X's. Y is unable to dodge it.
So from this, it would be logical to say "Character Z's attack was faster than that of X's" and use that speed on a calc as a form of lowball. However this is considered "calc stacking" and therefore it doesn't apply.

The problem here is that. Calc Stacking should stop being such a condition, like "If it's Calc Stacking it's not applicable in any case". And the proposed changes should be:

  • Using stats that scale resonably from Speed or AP feats that are stated in the series is not considered Calc Stacking.
This would be because. Calc stacking often goes beyond the purpose of the author. The author never meant a certain speed feat to be "that" fast, he was maybe expecting the result to be somewhere from 5 to any amount of number of times less than what the actual feat gave because authors do not usually do the math or simply do not care. However, things change if the author outright states the stats of those characters. In this case we do know the author's intention and it's not just us taking assumptions to wank the feat to oblivion, because there are no assumptions in the first place.

  • Calc Stacking is currently really harsh. It should stop being such and be judged on a case by case basis. So rather than saying
"It is calc stacking so even if it's perfectly reasonable, logical and mathematically correct, it doesn't count".

It should change to

"Even though it may be Calc Stacking, if it is reasonable, logical, has good arguments and is mathematically correct it could apply, if not then it does not apply"

Because as it stands right now, it can be very illogical. A list of very very strong arguments with no space for counterarguments can just be disregarded and said "Well it's calc stacking, so it makes sense, but rules say no". It feels like we're just saying "No U" to every case, including those that make sense for no real cause, reason or argument other than "That's what is written".

As i said i encountered this problem in a personal calc, and people said that there are many other cases that did suffer from the same problem with being perfectly reasonable yet them not getting accepted because of "the rules". I propose a change in those rules, specifically those 2 being the 2 changes i mentioned above.


Also on a side note, is it really good to have the page literally called "Calc Stacking"? I mean it's just slang for "Calculation Stacking", feels a little less unproffessional like that. Having slang in what is essentially a site guideline.
 
I advise everyone to keep in mind this is a general discussion rather than a CRT and there's a reason for that. Wide reaching revisions like this naturally cause a lot of aversion and because of this it can be difficult for regular members to raise their issues with important site policies without inadvertantly causing some amount of conflict.

But issues still need to be discussed and so I hope this thread will be taken more as an opportunity to properly look at the strengths and weaknesses of the calc stacking policy and the possible need for future revision if big problems are discovered than an urgent revision that gets shut down just after a majority disagreement with the opening arguments.

That's all
 
It seems best to move this thread to the calc group forum and only allow the calc group members and DontTalkDT to reply. It is their jurisdiction to decide issues like this.
 
Is it really a good idea though? I mean yes they are the ones who handle calculations, but this is about what's logical and what not. It would be best to be open to everyone. Maybe even highlight i don't know.
 
Yes, this type of discussion about regulations are best handled in calculation discussion or if the situation demands it in a staff discussion.
 
It would turn far too chaotic with the most well-informed voices drowned and tired out. I think that the calc group should discuss this with occasional comments from other staff members if necessary.
 
@Ant Fine by me, although a little unnecessary.

Anyways, I can't think of a counter-argument to this, so I don't see a problem with it. It seems only reasonable to apply this solely to people that classify under these three ratings:

1. How consistent are these characters compared to one another. 2. Is it reasonable to say this is what the author was really going for. 3. Does it contradict with all the other feats that comes later, so we know we just aren't high balling them?
 
I want to point out, very seriously, that having a two-sided discussion of "what's logical" about our standards between calc group members and our variety of regular users is a really good way to poison a thread and make everyone in it mad at each other.

So yes, I agree with just moving this to calc discussion.
 
Okay. Thank you for the support. I will move this thread then.
 
I have done so. Feel free to ask DontTalkDT and all of the calc group members to comment here: VS Battles Staff
 
Giygas3 said:
1. How consistent are these characters compared to one another. 2. Is it reasonable to say this is what the author was really going for. 3. Does it contradict with all the other feats that comes later, so we know we just aren't high balling them?
Click to expand...
1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No
 
It's never perfectly reasonable to calc stack. At least, not from what I've seen. You're proposing lax standards for something that infamously leads to monstrously inflated, bloated results for no reason other than "I think these are too harsh".

In your example, first off, that isn't calc stacking. You need to understand what calc stacking is before suggesting we just open the floodgates and allow it. Second off, methinks Character Z would just be >>MHS+, no?

TL;DR I don't see the point? The example you list doesn't sound like calc stacking and rather just scaling. Good heavens.

also I don't think the name is unprofessional so much as "just a name"
 
I think Mr. Bambu is right. Allowing calc stacking would establish a bad precedent that would lead to inflated results pretty quickly.
 
@Bambu Further context, the speed derived in this case was supppsed to be used in a KE calc. That's where the calc stacking concerns came in
 
@bambu the thing with his example is that in the other thread this was then taken as justification to give someone super high KE values because the attack was a tackle or something. That was deemed calc stacking there

Yeah I'm not a calc but can still clear that up.
 
Ah, that wasn't clear from this one. Then yeah, that shouldn't be used. Simple.
 
So from this, it would be logical to say "Character Z's attack was faster than that of X's" and use that speed on a calc as a form of lowball. However this is considered "calc stacking" and therefore it doesn't apply.

So, if 2 attacks can keep up with each other, can we make a powerscaling between them? Or this still calc stacking? Because I have an different opinion. This stuff of attacks keeping up with each other is generally PIS, the author doesnt make an explicity difference about both attacks in a matter of speed and such. Just look and U7 throwing attacks at the same and reaching the enemy at the same time (some of them still FTL+ and the others, MFTL+). Of course this is not a rule, if the author explicity states the attacks are equal in speed and goes at the same speed in the manga/hq then it is ok.

I could easily make some powerscaling between light or lightnings attacks to normal attacks and wank the whole thing.

@Damage knows what I am talking about
 
I really don't see how it's calc stacking when u dodge an attack that has an accepted calced speed. That doesn't make sense at all because your only hiding the fact that someone dodges an attack at that speed without a calc.
 
I never said "allow all calc stacking" but "in cases where it is reasonable and the calc stacking doesn't come from a calc in the first place but rather a statement, it should be at least be considered and looked upon to see whether it's good or bad".

@Bambu

Not really >> MHS+. Because it is greater cus instead of being able to dodge it, Y was able to block it, which requires less time to react. But that is not the topic. And on the first point, i know it isn't calc stacking, but people were saying that, that type of deduction would be a form of calc.

And lastly, let's not turn this like the last thread and go like "it's calc stacking so it's not ok". Let's discuss why in this case calc stacking is not applicable or in other words, wrong.

@M3X

That is if we're just coming from a single statement and that's it. Please do not misunderstand the topic here. We are to assume that in this case those are all true (example those are all WoG rather than PIS), cus that is a generalized example, not an actual example where i can provide proof of why character Z being faster would make sense and stuff. So accept the examples as given rather than questioning whether there are contradiction, scaling problems etc (assume there are no contradictions or scaling problems for simplicity's sake).
 
Please remember that this thread should primarily be for the calc group, and secondary for the rest of the staff.
 
I think it would be better to just have the calc group and other knowledgeable members contacted
 
Andy is most likely correct.
 
@Earl I've literally told you why Calc Stacking isn't okay. The page says why the rule is in place too. It leads to severely bloated results. We've seen this enough times to say this conclusively. This isn't a random appeal to tradition as you seem to say, this is just learning from experience.
 
And bambu, i've said this many times at this point. Im not saying "allow all calc stacking", I'm saying it should be considered as an option, always. So rather than just saying:

"No it's calc stacking, it's not allowed"

we shoul say

"Do you have good evidence that this is ok, have reasonable arguments as to why this is good enough and to top it off, does this line up with the showings of the verse so far? If yes then it can be accepted, if no then it is calc stacking"

Saying "lol no" even against a complete argument with no room for counterarguments is outright lazy and illogical, we're setting a very bad example with the "It's the rules so it has to be wrong". Im saying Calc Stacking should be judged on case by case basis and only in cases where this stacking doesn't come from a calc but rather author/narrative statements.

And "learning from experience" is not a good argument. Many times by now has experience been proven wrong. We learned from experience that 3-A DMC was wrong right? So we even added a rule about not allowing it to be discussed anymore. But hey, there were some people who could make a good enough constructive argument no one could debunk which got the tier accepted. Previous examples being experience is ok, them being rules is not. What i mean is the mindset shouldn't be "Calc stacking is not ok" but rather "Calc stacking is most likely not ok", which still leaves room for debate, you never know what a verse has to offer or what a person can argue for it. Giving an answer before the argument is not a good standard for a site focused on debating.
 
Putting aside everything else I vehemently disagree with "calc stacking should be ok if it's a statement". Being a statement doesn't mean using it in a calc is more reliable than another calced value, it doesn't make the problems of inflation suddenly disappear it just shifts it to people who are getting their rating from non calc sources

The idea that stacking calced values is wrong because the author may not be doing the maths to keep things in check but stated values are fine also doesn't work because if we were going by that logic why would be giving ratings for anything not directly stated? Authors didn't calc this vaporizing feat, we shouldn't make someone city level off of it because the author may not have realized this, authors may not know how dense clouds are or how far they have to move in a storm feats, let's scrap storm calcs as a whole, and are you really gonna tell me he intended this moon destruction to be large planet level? Scrap that as well

We never put such emphasis on author intentions and doing it so now to argue for the legitimacy of stacking when it's statements ignores a lot of what stance the site as a whole takes on power scaling
 
Tetsucabrah said:
Is it calc stacking if you try to get KE from a character that scales above another's calc'd speed?
Click to expand...
Yes it is. However, in our case, it's trying to get KE from a character who scales higher than someone's "stated" speed.

@Andy

I get where you're coming from, but the problem there is because the assumptions increase. The more assumptions, the less real the calculation. The more calcs you stack the more the assumptions stack up. A thing that doesn't exist in cases of stated feats.
 
Earl, we should say "It isn't allowed" because A. having an acceptable amount of bloatedness to a calc is indeed still allowing one calc to become bloated in its values over another, which I believe qualifies as a double standard, and B. it leads to the bloated results as seen above.

So for now, consider me heavily against this notion.
 
Tetsucabrah said:
Is it calc stacking if you try to get KE from a character that scales above another's calc'd speed?
Click to expand...

This is what I want to know. Something like this.

Why can't we use an accepted speed for an attack from a character which was calced and another character dodge that attack and calc that.

If you believe it's giving bloated results then that should be case by case because it could be consistent depending on the verse and character
 
Mr. Bambu said:
Earl, we should say "It isn't allowed" because A. having an acceptable amount of bloatedness to a calc is indeed still allowing one calc to become bloated in its values over another, which I believe qualifies as a double standard, and B. it leads to the bloated results as seen above.
So for now, consider me heavily against this notion.
Click to expand...
And if the result is consistent with the overall powerlevel of the verse? I mean saying "no it's wrong" is forgetting that things like "Outliers" exist. If the argument is perfectly reasonable, undebunkable and very clear without assumptions from start to finish, but gives a Solar System level AP in a tier 9 verse. That doesn't mean "it's not ok cus it's calc stacking", it's just well...an outlier, like we've always handled these kind of things. Or in other words, feats that were clearly not meant to be there, that break the whole system. No reason it should be treated as "lol calc stack" when it is completely fine, calling heavily inflated results "outliers" on the other hand would be fine.
 
A consistently bloated result is still a bloated result. How it compares to other feats in a series does not make it acceptable. End of discussion.
 
Firephoenixearl said:
At least we all agree that scaling from stated speed and AP in verse is not calc stacking?
Click to expand...
How can it be if there is no calc involved?
 
It is still a comparable concept and honestly just avoids being calc stacking via technicality

We disallow stuff that aren't calcs either way since the page says even being assumed to be supersonic via outpacing bullets and having that speed used in calcs would qualify as calc stacking
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Arc7Kuroi
One Piece Thunder Bagua Calc Stacking
Replies
19
Views
3K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Napoleondevious
calculation stacking question (projectiles)
Replies
1
Views
153
Ezaru
Ezaru
Does Calc stacking apply to weapons and bombs?
Replies
4
Views
533
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
KingNanaya
Question about calcs and calc stacking
Replies
12
Views
2K
KingNanaya
KingNanaya
Agnaa
Are Stated Speeds/Timeframes For Characters Calc Stacking?
2 3
Replies
94
Views
13K
KLOL506
KLOL506
Back
Top