• 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.
I guess we can do it now, then.

Also, I know it's a lot to ask, but could you have at least a cursory glance at these calculations. I've been trying to get them evaluated for months.
Conservation of Mechanical Energy doesn't work in fiction.
I don't think PE specifically takes conservation of energy into account.

Also, I'm still extremely unsure of Bang scaling. Garou was in a weird monster state after that fight.
 
I guess we can do it now, then.

Also, I know it's a lot to ask, but could you have at least a cursory glance at these calculations. I've been trying to get them evaluated for months.

I don't think PE specifically takes conservation of energy into account.
Used the PE method by using mgh. Got 12 Kilotons. So it obviously can't be used.
 
Conservation of Mechanical Energy doesn't work in fiction.
Gravity is still a thing in any form of fiction and in order to lift those rocks into the air, at least a minimal amount of energy is required.

So I suggest people to calculate the distance between the ground and the rocks and get the potential energy from there.

Just as we did with the Psykos-Orochi feat.
 
Low doesn't mean improper.

We do go for higher versions of calculations over lower ones when we can (provided it's not an outlier), but not if the methodology is unreliable.
 
Damage seemed to have problems with the 6-C calc for HE, I will ask him to be sure.
 
Low doesn't mean improper.

We do go for higher versions of calculations over lower ones when we can (provided it's not an outlier), but not if the methodology is unreliable.
Outlier as it is coming out to be 12 Kilotons. Plus, we definitely can't use this as the rocks are likely flying off at Hypersonic speeds.
 
Outlier as it is coming out to be 12 Kilotons.
Which means we don't use the feat (until the fixes, anyway, but that depends if the new version is accurate). We don't alternate between something that's an outlier and something that's unreliable, we just don't use either.
Plus, we definitely can't use this as the rocks are likely flying off at Hypersonic speeds.
Not necessarily, but I guess we'll wait for the fixes and Homeless Emperor stuff.
 
We can't upgrade the characters if the calc itself is put in question.
Yeah, that's what I said. If the calc is in question, this CRT is done for altogether. Thus, I suggest it needs a new thread.
 
Outlier as it is coming out to be 12 Kilotons. Plus, we definitely can't use this as the rocks are likely flying off at Hypersonic speeds.
Not how an outlier works, if the feat is 12 kilotons then it's just another feat that doesn't help with the scaling.

Though the calc is currently extremely inflated anyway, assuming that each vector point is a rock.
 
If the problems are actually valid, we'll probably close this. But let's not get too hasty.
 
Not how an outlier works, if the feat is 12 kilotons then it's just another feat that doesn't help with the scaling.

Though the calc is currently extremely inflated anyway, assuming that each vector point is a rock.
The original calc is being fixed and Darth is trying to make it more accurate. We can wait for that.

BTW, did you message Damage? You said he/she had a problem with the calc?
 
I have some issues with HE's calc.

I'll get into it in the comments for that.
 
That was TimmyTurnero, who's blocked.

Also, I know I'm not the one being accused here, but 'delaying tactics' is such a stupid point. If you're trying not to get a revision accepted, how does delaying it really help you?
 
I don't have to ask because that's obviously not what's happening.
 
Nevertheless that claim is week ago and even now still unprepared so for me it he looks like
What on Earth are you talking about?

Your rambling comments serve totally no purpose in this thread and you keep on bringing up unrelated things in some kind of weird way to discredit people I guess?
 
I will be deleting derailing comments, including those belonging to Worthless like the one above from now on.
 
@Worthless; this is an official warning since you seem insistent on spamming the thread with useless comments.

Do it again and I'll have to give you a temporary ban to stop you from filling up the thread.
 
I don't really care that much, but at least do this somewhere else.
 
Because you said 'You triggered or something? Just so you know I've been watching MHA discussion thread.' I don't think it's harassing, but the general tone of this and other messages could be seen (I say could be seen because I don't know if you really meant it like this) as aggressive.

But we're derailing at this point. Just talk to me on my message wall if you really want.
 
Last edited:
That's if this calc is accepted over the original. Maybe make a calculation group thread since it's somewhat controversial, and keep this one active for the new Garou calc.
 
No, we're still waiting on a Garou calc.

So 12.3 megatons per slash.
Yeah, but I'm a bit skeptical about the calc itself. Both versions of the calc use the same method but they both have very varying results. Let's not run for a downgrade before comparing both properly.
 
It looks mathematically correct. Well, there's one little problem. The previous calc was mathematically correct too. The only issue is the pixel scaling.
The previous calc uses a building for the scale and this one uses a window.
 
It looks mathematically correct. Well, there's one little problem. The previous calc was mathematically correct too. The only issue is the pixel scaling.
The other calc had faulty pixelscaling though. There is no clear building there; not one that can be reasonably assumed to be 12.9 meters tall.
 
The other calc had faulty pixelscaling though. There is no clear building there; not one that can be reasonably assumed to be 12.9 meters tall.
It was there but has been covered by the green line. I tried checking it by reading the chapter. It was there. I think the 12.9 meters estimate came from the number of floors.
 
It was there but has been covered by the green line. I tried checking it by reading the chapter. It was there. I think the 12.9 meters estimate came from the number of floors.
Therefir and I both looked at the unedited page. Can't see it.
 
Back
Top