• 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.

New profile posts

Will you be able to provide some input in this thread? Also, can you ping the following staff members as well: DT, Ultima, Elizhaa, Executor_N0, Everything12, Planck69, Glassman as they are listed as knowledgeable on Tier 2 and 1 stuff.
Could i ask you to debunk something?
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
You can show me something and I can give my opinion on it, but I'm not going to participate in a debate.
I see you have already worked on the Body Control page. It was something I was planning to tackle months ago and completely forgot. So thanks for handling it.
However, I have some minor nitpicks.
  • Can we use numbered list instead of bullet list for the types?
  • 'Advanced function control' looks wrong/weird. I think something like 'Control of advanced functions' looks better, imo.
  • You changed 'Control of the Body' to 'Control of anatomical features' but it seems like you have removed some of the description like "In addition, in some cases, it can be controlled even separated from the body parts, which gives ample opportunity for attack (or to recover from the destruction of the main body).". Now it seems to have complete overlap in terms of functionality to 'Advanced function control'
  • Also, I was thinking should we add a Note section where we recommend people to add a 'limited' prefix when the character doesn't display the full gamut of abilities expected of the type while only displaying some of the abilities and having some limitations for the body control type.
Sup bro
I had something to ask from ya.

About the wog on the silver sea's infinite layers size and the world's infinite size. It was a screenshot that is available at the cosmology of the blog, but the direct source link from where the author's comment was taken is not there. Do you, perhaps, have the source link of it ?
Hello! if you have time, can you please check this out?

Hello! if you have time, can you please check this out?

Can you give some input here
Could I get your input on this CRT?
Could I get your input on this CRT?
Hello, could I get your input on this CRT?

Would using one of these things at all be a fair match against first key Dio?
Chariot190
Chariot190
idk, dio kinda outdated, ive just been busy LS and just a few hax mainly all that he's missing that's relevant but still
but it's warhammer so gonna say nah
Can you give some input here
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Ionization is a weird method, looking back on it, I dunno if I'd still stand by those calcs. Still, I support the initiative, as I still very much adore XCOM. I seem to recall animations of soldiers dodging projectiles somewhat, although those animations of missed shots have always been very dodgy and odd. I can't think of anything in particular for LS off the top of my head, unfortunately.
Tomfer
Tomfer
I'm using your (old ass) suggestions as a base, hence why I'm still using ionization.

Speed-wise... Yeah, they don't really look like dodging and more of the opponent's fault for missing them, but still... I guess it can still be used? If nothing else comes. LS-wise, yeah, I guess I'll just put them as Athletic Humans since they're soldiers.

On another note, I've seen a very old CRT where you offered to put Sectoid's scaling as "possible" because Soldiers, while they can tank it, they do it barely. How about downscaling instead? It sounds more pausible since they can indeed tank it, it's not really open to possibilities.
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Meh, I just can't personally remember what led to that conclusion- discussions that I don't think I have a presence in any more, I don't recall any lore that would have made that cool. They're still evaluated, but I think it would be better to just go with destruction/superheating, tbh.

That last point sounds fine to me. Six years of experience has changed how I view a lot of things, and our standards have also changed significantly since then.
I'm over my salt and am prepared to begin work on Hunter: the Parenting profiles

Now, are the feats present in the series itself good enough for proper ratings on most of the stats or do I need references from other WoD content in of itself?

Like, I know I'll need to pull from other content for Speed, I have no idea where Peak Human comes from for that, but are there any other stats I should be worrying about on that end?
hello Dereck, it's been a while, can you check this crt? just 2 stuff

Shiraito983
Shiraito983
hello, im here again. Can you share your thoughts on this?
This is already calced, but I want your honest opinion on this feat as the recalc out it at Low 7C. We have a brief moment for the destruction in question and it seems to been fragmentation at least.

Edit: I forget I can clip on YouTube.

Here is a short clip of this scene

HammerStrikes219
HammerStrikes219
To add a little more context to this, we see a spell launched at a side of a mountain and it technically did blow up a chunk of a mountain.
Chariot190
Chariot190
I can see that, just calc the destruction it caused?
HammerStrikes219
HammerStrikes219
Alright, I guess that is all I got there so yeah.
Hello! if you have time, can you please check this out?

Could you help me with this please?
Could you help me with this please?

Could you help me with this please?
Hello friend, Could you translate this please?

RoggerReggor
RoggerReggor
Hey there, I was originally the one who asked Zetsu to get the scene translated because I don't happen to know any VSBW-accepted translators, so yeah, thank you very much for the help.

So, in the official English translation of this scene, it talks about how Ibuki (a girl character) dented an elevator but doesn't add much context behind the depth of anything about the dent, so I got my hands over the official JP version after searching for it for a long time, after I heard that it did add some context.

Your translation:
Frustrated, Ibuki stood up and flew right into the elevator with all of her might. The place she had kicked became surrounded in force. She kicked the area again. Though the elevator shook violently, there was not a sign of it moving.

Bing Translate:
Ibuki stood up in frustration and kicked the elevator as hard as she could have kicked. The place is dented as much as possible. There was another kick to the same spot. The elevator was shaking but there was no sign of it moving.

ChatGPT:
As frustration surged within Ibuki, she stood up and kicked the elevator with all her might. A spot on the wall caved in significantly. He delivered another kick to the same spot. The elevator swayed violently but there was no sign of it starting to move.

Google Translate:
Frustrated, Ibuki stood up and kicked the elevator as hard as she could. The part was deeply dented. Another kick to the same spot. The elevator was shaking but there was no sign of it starting to move.

I got the scene translated through various sources available on the internet (but of course, getting it verified with an actual person becomes important), so which translation best supports the "surrounded in force" statement, if it does provide that kind of context behind the scene. Also, this is particularly about the part where she becomes frustrated and kicks the elevator with all her might (which is common between translations, but the intensity of the dent becomes questionable).

Thanks again.
Qliphoth_Bacikal
Qliphoth_Bacikal
Ah, I see something I actually did wrong. There was a kanji I normally never see before (凹) if not very unoften so I must have thought of something off there.

It actually does say she dented the area, rather than being "surrounded for force" which looking back would be read pretty weirdly. My bad lol. I'll adjust that after this comment. (TBF, I am literally being juggled with various other TL requests off this site, plus a novel project I'm working on so I can easily get one piece of something wrong)

That said in regards to the "area" she kicks at, there's not much else than the char in question just kicking something so hard she made a dent on somewhere and caused the elevator they're in to shake. That's about it. Sorry for the slight confusion and of not being able to provide anymore details with what I am given here.

Hope any of this sorta helps to clarify it.
RoggerReggor
RoggerReggor
I see. Thank you very much once again. And also, don't worry about it, I wish you luck on the work you are doing.
Hey Qawsed, I have a question. Is the following statement considered a valid standard for 2-A?

A space capable of containing a Universe+ sized model in addition to spanning an infinite distance could be equal to a 2-A space? Ik the question is vague without supporting eviddence though i can provide it if you want.
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Low 2-C has two different ends. A universe sized 4D area and a infinite 4D area. With 2-C and upwards being other infinite/universal sized spaces. The statement is only Low 2-C.
Tatsumi504
Tatsumi504
In this case the space itself is 4D, already contains a Universe+ model and is confirmed to not be filled by it, is infinite.
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Yeah, that's still Low 2-C. 2-C and up requires a 5th dimensional axis since you're dealing with multiple 4D planes.
Back
Top