• 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

Hi, can you please help?

The first character is 8-A and goes up to 7-B with RE, and the second character is 8-A and goes up to 6-B with RE. We're capping them at 8-A. Will their stats be equal with RE?
Hi, can you please help?

The first character is 8-A and goes up to 7-B with RE, and the second character is 8-A and goes up to 6-B with RE. We're capping them at 8-A. Will their stats be equal with RE?
Hi, can you please help?

The first character is 8-A and goes up to 7-B with RE, and the second character is 8-A and goes up to 6-B with RE. We're capping them at 8-A. Will their stats be equal with RE?
Hi, can you please help?

The first character is 8-A and goes up to 7-B with RE, and the second character is 8-A and goes up to 6-B with RE. We're capping them at 8-A. Will their stats be equal with RE?
Kachon123
Kachon123
Well the 2 people used the same pixel scaling and image

Are you sure that 100 cuts does work? I feel like it works better then assuming one static panel accounts for the entire Atomic Slash because the perspective only seems to show the front slashes, and not the cuts that reached further back.
Drite77
Drite77
I feel like 44 works better because we can't always assume he'll do 100 slashes. Murata's art is very detailed, if he wanted, he would've drawn 100 slashes. We also work with Low-Ends normally
Kachon123
Kachon123
I agree on the low ends part so I guess I'll just make it 2 different ends.


As for the Murata art bit, he actually draws panels like this often. He actually usually draws on a piece of paper much larger than what the panel allows for then crops the art to add only what's essential. It's why the sizes of differently translated versions vary and have more/less lines depending on their region's standards. I wouldn't really use the lines we see as a hard-cap, which is why I personally think its better to fall for the stated end
happy birthday

QGuurKG.png
Hello, could you take a look at this? Your input would be appreciated
Hello Qawsed, since you're one who had handled the Toeiverse's High 1-A stuff, I wanna asked the High 1-A qualification in your perspective. Does High 1-A even need 1-A+ structure within a verse for qualified? Or just transcending the 1-A structure as the same way as 1-A do to the dimensional hierarchy? — I mean, do High 1-A just need viewed 1-A hierarchy as a fiction and transcending it. I hopeful on you🙏
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
1-A+ is not required for High 1-A. You just need to showcase some form of Meta-Meta transcendence.
I mean, do High 1-A just need viewed 1-A hierarchy as a fiction and transcending it. I hopeful on you🙏
No. 1-A is based on R>F. More R>F is just more 1-A layers. You have to show a level of transcendence that does not rely on R>F.
Hello! If you have the time, could you please share your input here?
Hello, KT. Could you please give your input here?
Sorry, would u mind checking this when u have free time? Thanks
Hello
I have a question about measuring pixel lines—could you help me?

Let me give an example using the case of Kageo destroying the sand floor


Normally, pixel measurement involves using a reference (Kageo’s height) and then applying that reference to determine the width and depth of the hole. However, I noticed that Arthur Nando444’s calculation uses two references in the same image (using the foot length as a reference to find the hole’s width, and then using that width as a new reference to measure areas near the destroyed section). So I’m wondering—is it actually valid to do it that way?

Thank you in advance for your help. 🥰
sorry for bothering you, can you give your input here? Thank you

sorry for bothering you, can you give your input here? Thank you

sorry for bothering you, can you give your input here? Thank you

sorry for bothering you, can you give your input here? Thank you

sorry for bothering you, can you give your input here? Thank you

sorry for bothering you, can you give your input here? Thank you

Okay, so I made a different proposal, regarding tier 0, and it should be relatively shorter compared to the other proposal which was for sum low 1-A to high 1-A stuff. Do check it out when you have time. If you’re not interested at all, that’s also fine.
Can you evaluate this CRT? The scaling-chain seems mostly approved by everyone, but there are some disagreements about other aspects (a multiplier equivalency and whether the feat should be split) that could use some staff opinion!
Can you evaluate this CRT? The scaling-chain seems mostly approved by everyone, but there are some disagreements about other aspects (a multiplier equivalency and whether the feat should be split) that could use some staff opinion!
Can you evaluate this CRT? The scaling-chain seems mostly approved by everyone, but there are some disagreements about other aspects (a multiplier equivalency and whether the feat should be split) that could use some staff opinion!
Can you evaluate this CRT? The scaling-chain seems mostly approved by everyone, but there are some disagreements about other aspects (a multiplier equivalency and whether the feat should be split) that could use some staff opinion!
Can you evaluate this CRT? The scaling-chain seems mostly approved by everyone, but there are some disagreements about other aspects (a multiplier equivalency and whether the feat should be split) that could use some staff opinion!
Whenever you can, can you evaluate this CRT? The scaling-chain seems mostly approved by everyone, but there are some disagreements about other aspects (a multiplier equivalency and whether the feat should be split) that could use some staff opinion!
Back
Top