PTJ Verse - Speed Upgrade

[Crimsonobu]

" Eh. I'm not that familiar with all the bad calcs for Lookism (only ones I remember are 8-C Hudson and HHS Kid Johan calcs) but I don't think TR's as bad as Lookism in that department lol. Sure there were bad calcs for it (9-A Taiju and 9-A Sanzu calcs are the only ones that come to my mind) but there weren't as bad as the bad Lookism calcs.

You also gotta consider the fact that bad TR calcs aren't even used atm, while some bad Lookism calcs (especially speed calcs) are still being used. "

fair point. i think some of the speed calcs are bad aswell. not really on the AP ones that are currently accepted.
tr has been a fairly dead verse (on the count of it being over and all that) so yeah there isnt an influx of calcs for it

there has been ALOT of bad calcs for speed kid johan was notorious but some of them were from viott (while back so cant really flame the quality) for high hyper/sub relativistic warren for which i remember it was accepted for a short amount of time?

"Don't remember that one. Was that the James Lee dodges Eli calc?"

warren vs minsik if i recall right

and the exam went great i belive . good day to yall

 

[Viott]

That's right. I already typed up all my arguments before lol.

And you need to know that I’ve debunked all of them.

Then you should have also typed this out on the blog as an explanation on why you changed it.

I had already written it before sending my comment.

Eh. I'm not that familiar with all the bad calcs for Lookism (only ones I remember are 8-C Hudson and HHS Kid Johan calcs) but I don't think TR's as bad as Lookism in that department lol. Sure there were bad calcs for it (9-A Taiju and 9-A Sanzu calcs are the only ones that come to my mind) but there weren't as bad as the bad Lookism calcs.

You also gotta consider the fact that bad TR calcs aren't even used atm, while some bad Lookism calcs (especially speed calcs) are still being used.

Don't remember that one. Was that the James Lee dodges Eli calc?

Damn. Hope ya pass it.

" Eh. I'm not that familiar with all the bad calcs for Lookism (only ones I remember are 8-C Hudson and HHS Kid Johan calcs) but I don't think TR's as bad as Lookism in that department lol. Sure there were bad calcs for it (9-A Taiju and 9-A Sanzu calcs are the only ones that come to my mind) but there weren't as bad as the bad Lookism calcs.

You also gotta consider the fact that bad TR calcs aren't even used atm, while some bad Lookism calcs (especially speed calcs) are still being used. "

fair point. i think some of the speed calcs are bad aswell. not really on the AP ones that are currently accepted.
tr has been a fairly dead verse (on the count of it being over and all that) so yeah there isnt an influx of calcs for it

there has been ALOT of bad calcs for speed kid johan was notorious but some of them were from viott (while back so cant really flame the quality) for high hyper/sub relativistic warren for which i remember it was accepted for a short amount of time?

"Don't remember that one. Was that the James Lee dodges Eli calc?"

warren vs minsik if i recall right

and the exam went great i belive . good day to yall

Let’s not go off-topic.

 

[Dinozxd]

fair point. i think some of the speed calcs are bad aswell. not really on the AP ones that are currently accepted.

Yeah I don't have much problems with the calcs rn, but more so in the scaling.

Lookism inverse is a highly debatable topic though, so whatever.

tr has been a fairly dead verse (on the count of it being over and all that) so yeah there isnt an influx of calcs for it

Actually there aren't many calcs for it because every feat has already been calculated lol. Wakui (author of TR) is pretty much done with the series so I don't think there will be any new content for the verse.

there has been ALOT of bad calcs for speed kid johan was notorious but some of them were from viott (while back so cant really flame the quality) for high hyper/sub relativistic warren for which i remember it was accepted for a short amount of time?

warren vs minsik if i recall right

Nah that one was never accepted lol. It got rejected in forums.

And you need to know that I’ve debunked all of them.

I'm not falling for the ragebait buddy.

I had already written it before sending my comment.

You made the explanation on the blog like 10 mins ago.

 

[Viott]

Yeah I don't have much problems with the calcs rn, but more so in the scaling.

Lookism inverse is a highly debatable topic though, so whatever.

Actually there aren't many calcs for it because every feat has already been calculated lol. Wakui (author of TR) is pretty much done with the series so I don't think there will be any new content for the verse.


Nah that one was never accepted lol. It got rejected in forums.

I told you not to go off-topic. Go write such things on their message wall or somewhere else. I don’t care.

You made the explanation on the blog like 10 mins ago.

Not 10 minutes. I edited it at 21:25 and commented at 00:15.

Also, what does it matter? My new calculation still hasn’t been evaluated.

 

[Dinozxd]

I told you not to go off-topic. Go write such things on their message wall or somewhere else. I don’t care.

That's actually true. My bad.

Not 10 minutes. I edited it at 21:25 and commented at 00:15.

Also, what does it matter? My new calculation still hasn’t been evaluated.

Commented what? Also, when you made the explanation doesn't mean anything. The important thing is that you made that explanation only after I pointed it out so it seems more dishonest than anything.

It could've been evaluated before I realized that.

 

[Viott]

Commented what? Also, when you made the explanation doesn't mean anything. The important thing is that you made that explanation only after I pointed it out so it seems more dishonest than anything.

It could've been evaluated before I realized that.

I was going to explain this anyway, but I forgot, and your comment reminded me.

Also, I don’t care what you say. I’ll wait for the CGM members’ evaluation.

 

[Dinozxd]

I was going to explain this anyway, but I forgot, and your comment reminded me.

Making changes like that require making an explanation as you're making the change mate. Just don't do that again.

Also, I don’t care what you say.

W mentality

 

[Viott]

Making changes like that require making an explanation as you're making the change mate. Just don't do that again.

I already know. I already said that I forgot, didn’t I? So instead of making unnecessary comments, just wait for my new calculation to be evaluated.

 

[Dinozxd]

So instead of making unnecessary comments,

That wasn't even a comment. Think of it more like advice so you don't look dishonest again.

Tho ur right. Let's just wait for the re calc to get evaluated.

 

[Vzearr]

Dude at a quick glance the contention is the pixel scaling? As Dino established it leads to negative numbers, but Viott's pixel scaling leads to positive numbers, honestly just get a calc group member to rescale it for non bias results.

My debunks still stand.

This feat displays inconsistency, the dude is crying in one panel and in the next panel his face is contorted to the side, meaning scaling to his nose bridge is flawed as the distance moved by him creates larger distance between him and the bullet, meaning the bullet moved more distance. Onto my second reasoning as to why the calc is flawed, we use the diameter of the bullet here which is closer to the Point of View of the camera then the slash, using something closer to the camera to scale something further than the camera actually makes the thing further than the camera look much larger. Onto the third reason, once the bullet is touched, the velocity slows down significantly, so using the end of the bullet as scaling is flawed because the bullet has already slow'n down due to being cut from the front.

 

[Viott]

That wasn't even a comment. Think of it more like advice so you don't look dishonest again.

I don’t need your advice.

 

[Viott]

Dude at a quick glance the contention is the pixel scaling? As Dino established it leads to negative numbers, but Viott's pixel scaling leads to positive numbers, honestly just get a calc group member to rescale it for non bias results.

My debunks still stand.

I have already refuted these arguments. And I guess you didn't read the comments. Wait until my new calculation is evaluated again.

 

[Dinozxd]

As Dino established it leads to negative numbers, but Viott's pixel scaling leads to positive numbers

It was more about the use of smaller references than negative numbers or positive numbers actually. Sadly, I wouldn't be a reliable source to accurately sum up the discussion as I'm the opposing side of the debate so I won't attempt to do that.

Maybe try to read the whole debate, if you got time ofc.

I don’t need your advice.

@Vzearr

Wait until my new calculation is evaluated again

No one can order that guy around besides me, pal.

 

[Viott]

Lol.

 

[Viott]

If there is no major inconsistencies with the speed, I guess it is fine.

I'm not qualified to evaluate calculations, though I at least think the matter here has been established enough to cast some doubt on the variables used. I would like to have a calculation group member look at this thread before proceeding.

Recalc was accepted.

What do you think?

 

[Vzearr]

Look at my lawyer dawg I'm going to jail

 

[Viott]

Look at my lawyer dawg I'm going to jail

What?

 

[Pyro9278]

Aside from the question of whether the calculation is consistent or not, shouldn't Taehon and the rest of HTF scale as well?

 

[CatLover313]

Aside from the question of whether the calculation is consistent or not, shouldn't Taehon and the rest of HTF scale as well?

Don't forget the questism cast too. Though, since the recalc was accepted to be supersonic, both HTF, Questism, and Lookism all have better speed feats anyway (also just want to note, my original calc method was basically the same as this accepted one )

 

[Viott]

Aside from the question of whether the calculation is consistent or not, shouldn't Taehon and the rest of HTF scale as well?

Maybe. I might open another CRT for this in the future.

 

[Pyro9278]

Don't forget the questism cast too. Though, since the recalc was accepted to be supersonic, both HTF, Questism, and Lookism all have better speed feats anyway (also just want to note, my original calc method was basically the same as this accepted one )

All the supersonic calculations of the PTJ verse were denied so currently this would be the only one I think.

 

[Viott]

All the supersonic calculations of the PTJ verse were denied so currently this would be the only one I think.

No. It was not rejected by CGM members, because no one commented.

 

[Pyro9278]

No. It was not rejected by CGM members, because no one commented.

It's a bit odd that the debate has been left hanging, because if the feats haven't been (formally) rejected, then what's the point of this CRT if it's just a supportive feat?

 

[Viott]

It's a bit odd that the debate has been left hanging, because if the feats haven't been (formally) rejected, then what's the point of this CRT if it's just a supportive feat?

You are right. Until the Supersonic+ calculations are removed, the supersonic calculation is only a supporting calculation. Therefore, this CRT should be put on hold for now.

 

[Elizhaa]

So, currently, is the crt to be postpone?

 

[Viott]

So, currently, is the crt to be postpone?

Yes.

 

[Crimsonobu]

You are right. Until the Supersonic+ calculations are removed, the supersonic calculation is only a supporting calculation. Therefore, this CRT should be put on hold for now.

supporting calculation to what exactly?

 

[Pyro9278]

supporting calculation to what exactly?

The previous Supersonic+ calculations have not yet been rejected by a member of the calculation group. In any case, this would be an opportunity to renew them on another CRT or wait for a member to give their opinion at some point.

 

[Firestorm808]

If the calc is accepted and no contradictions in the scaling, it should be fine.

 

[FinePoint]

I'm not qualified to evaluate the calculation itself.

So long as a CGM doesn't weigh in and decide it's not valid, you can consider me in support of the revision.

 

[CatLover313]

Since most of the verse speed calculations' have disappeared, does this make the CRT valid now? If not, I did plan on doing an entire verse speed revamp soon with the calc's that stayed.

 

[Viott]

Since most of the verse speed calculations' have disappeared, does this make the CRT valid now? If not, I did plan on doing an entire verse speed revamp soon with the calc's that stayed.

There is a slightly higher calculation on the main page.

 

[Firestorm808]

What else is needed here?

 

[Viott]

What else is needed here?

Nothing. This can be closed.