FANDOM


  • Antvasima
    Antvasima closed this thread because:
    04:35, November 8, 2017

    Over the weeks and months I have noticed many users wish to delve into learning how to perform calculations, yet not knowing where to start or feeling overwhelmed at the information and confused at the scattered-ness of the calculation pages.


    Here several users and I have talked about and looked over a possible composite page for a very in-depth yet appealing and user-friendly guide and reference page for the commonly used formulas and calculation options. This is what it looks like so far.

    We currently have three separate calculation pages (I am actually wrong, we have more than three that I didn't know existed), and while they are all valuable assets, if you did not know what to look for, you may find only one. In addition, Calculation Guide is very outdated. It does not have our updated method of angsizing, and just generally smells of "old wiki". The link to the actual Calculations page is a tiny footnote, and the link to Calc Stacking, Explosion Yield Calculations, and more are missing entirely. For a guide it is lack-luster.

    So I propose a page that is more encompassing and, as stated above, user-friendly. We need a better calculation page for any aspiring calcers to easily utilize and jump into. I would put this isn't Staff or Calc Discussions, but I really want to encourage normal users to speak here, as well as staff. Let me know what yall think!

      Loading editor
    • That's an excellent idea, Waffle. When I came here two years ago, I felt as if the Calculation Guide never really helped me out, like, it had a little bit of information, but overall, didn't help at all. So I'm in full agreement that we completely remake it, into something more on the lines that you're talking about. 

        Loading editor
    • Seems like a good idea.

        Loading editor
    • You already know my opinion, so I will go personal story.

      I am a biochemistry major, and I like to think I am decent at math. Not the greatest, but good enough to do some basic calculations.

      And the pages are just.. clunky.

      I read through Assaltwaffles blog, and to boost his ego just a tiny bit, I learned way more from the blog then I have from both the calculation guide and calculations page.

      Combined.

      Sure, I might be hyperbolic, but too put it simply.

      I think this is an issue we should focus on more, teaching people how to calc and not look for more experienced members.

      Assaltwaffle has a life guys.

      Darkanine has a life.

      I HAVE a life.

      I support this obviously for other reasons detailed earlier so woo hoo.

        Loading editor
    • I agree and this is something that current calc group members like us can use, as well as anyone else who wants to recreationally perform calcs, or wants to join the calc group.

        Loading editor
    • I do agree with the implementation of this.

        Loading editor
    • Oh and umr has a life.

      I cant tell you how many times I spammed the calc request page, he answered before I started how to learn the basics of the scariest language on earth: Math.

      In all seriousness, I think we should also consider just replacing those pages with this blog once done since it will likely be more concise and it is a step by step process basically.

      Like a textbook, except for people who want to find out how strong/fast someone is.

        Loading editor
    • I could have used this when I was trying to calculate the dang labrador. And I bet I can still use this as I want to try and calculate other characters. Approved.

        Loading editor
    • This looks like a good idea. Don’t see anything wrong with it.

        Loading editor
    • On a side note, there should be blogs for values and such, I have a blog made that has a bunch of values for fragmentation, pulverizaing, melting, vaporization, atomizaton and freezing of water, of various materials, it helps so I don't need.to hunt down stuff like that. There should be a blog or page with a list of all that stuff and more for people to have access to so no searching through 50 Google pages.

        Loading editor
    • TheJ-ManRequiem wrote:

      http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/Calculations

      But there is :^)

        Loading editor
    • The page seems very useful.

        Loading editor
    • Huh so there is, missing some values I've found But has a lot of other stuff.

      Now if only the formula or multiplier for kinetic energy under water was there ovo.

        Loading editor
    • I think this page is a good idea.

        Loading editor
    • Agreeing with this 10000000000%

        Loading editor
    • Thanks for the support guys! What would you like to be added to my sandbox? Possibly more obscure formulas like rotational speed? More detail on mid-level calcs like angsizing and the like? I want this to be the best it can be if this is going to become a frequently visited resource.

        Loading editor
    • I read through your sandbox (sorry it took so long, days been flying by) and it's great. A lot more informative then the official page (which at best has been a reference sheet for me when I forget values). Very easy to follow while still providing good information. A resource I would like to recommend is watchframebyframe, which I use to get almost exact timeframes for YouTube videos.

      As for stuff to be added, here's some ideas:

      • A list of common units of measurement and how they convert into each other (mph to m/s, tons to kg, g/cm^3 to kg/m^3, etc)
      • Latent Heat and how it works (I still have trouble following it since our section on it is so bare bones)
      • Mass-Energy Conversion and when to use it.
        Loading editor
    • AlbertEinsteinneedshelpfam

      this thread in a nutshell

        Loading editor
    • I would correct Einstein’s grammar but that’s not his field :o

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima
      Antvasima removed this reply because:
      04:54, November 3, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • that guy's got a really high IQ

        Loading editor
    • I don't want to sound like a humorless grandpa, but I would prefer that the thread doesn't get derailed with memes. At least not this early...

        Loading editor
    • Assaltwaffle wrote:
      I don't want to sound like a humorless grandpa, but I would prefer that the thread doesn't get derailed with memes. At least not this early...

      yeah ok xD just cant help it

        Loading editor
    • @Dark

      I'll add watchframebyframe and the stuff you just recommended to it. Also, do we really need conversions? I just use Google's converter lol.

        Loading editor
    • Assaltwaffle wrote:
      @Dark

      I'll add watchframebyframe and the stuff you just recommended to it. Also, do we really need conversions? I just use Google's converter lol.

      Is it bad I do conversions by hand.

      I just want to do all the steps so I know for sure I dont miss anything and at least I use my 'accurate' results.

      But a conversion link in your blog seems like a good idea.

        Loading editor
    • Very nice, I will look through them when I had the time. Good works.

        Loading editor
    • @Kink

      Alright I'll add a list of common conversions and values as well.

        Loading editor
    • I think its an awesome Idea! I myself have noticed the current calculation pages aren't very informative, which has been a bit of an issue for me since I am still trying to learn how to perform calcs.

        Loading editor
    • This seems like a good idea, as long as we do not delete the older pages, and keep this as a complement.

      Maybe DontTalk is willing to help out? I will ask him.

        Loading editor
    • I wasn't planning on deleting them. In fact, I have all of them linked in my current version. That said the Calculation Guide page will need to be updated with the extra step we are currently using while angsizing.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. That seems fine then.

        Loading editor
    • this is what ive been looking yessh, good idea!

        Loading editor
    • Antvasima wrote:
      Okay. That seems fine then.

      Can we consider posting this information blog tab when complete Ant or would that not work since it is not a blog post?

      When grouped together, the three pages combined would be more then enough to do like, 80-90 percent of requests on here.

        Loading editor
    • It can be a blog post or a normal page. I can simply copy everything with source editor and post it wherever it is needed, bolds, links, and all.

        Loading editor
    • When the introductory calculation guide blog has been finished, the contents can be posted as a regular page, yes, but it is best to wait for DontTalk's input first.

      Also, I have previously posted links to all of the calculation guide pages in the front page and the wiki navigation bar, so they should be easy to find.

        Loading editor
    • Assaltwaffle wrote: @Dark

      I'll add watchframebyframe and the stuff you just recommended to it. Also, do we really need conversions? I just use Google's converter lol.

      I use their converter too. I can convert by memory at this point, but that takes to long and their converter is just quicker. Convertanyunit is good too.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, I'm going to add some more links and resources tomorrow. Time for bed, though. I have a Psych test (for college, not for my mental health) tomorrow so I need to rest up.

        Loading editor
    • Assaltwaffle wrote:

      That said the Calculation Guide page will need to be updated with the extra step we are currently using while angsizing.

      Would you be willing to handle this part Darkanine?

        Loading editor
    • Sure. I've been meaning to do so for awhile now.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. Thank you for the help.

        Loading editor
    • I think you can just use the airburst radius formula instead of telling them to go to the Stardestroyer.net calculator and repeatedly change the megaton yield.

        Loading editor
    • Technically having multiple explanations doesn't do harm, then again having two official explanations about everything seem rather redundant. If you find the calculation pages hard to use I would rather try to improve them, then to have a summary of all of them squeezed upon a single page.

      It also adds unnecessary work as every time a new page is written or something about the existing is changed, changes would have to be made to the composite page as well (which isn't simple copy and paste, because the different formats).


      Personally I didn't think that finding the calculation pages is that difficult given that they all are in a category together.

      If there are navigation problems I would quite simply solve those by adding a "See also" section to  the bottom of the page listing some other calculation pages and a link to the calculation instructions category.


      If there are explanations in the calculation instruction pages that you find difficult to understand or hard to use in practice, I would suggest simply improving upon those instead of writing a second explanation somewhere else. And if there are things that aren't explained yet add new pages or expand old ones.


      In regards to structure most of the articles stand seperately. Aside from reading the calculation guide first to figure out scaling and stuff all articles can be used without knowledge of the others, meaning that having them on a single page doesn't add to the structure.

      So the calculation guide should lay all the groundwork needed for understanding the other articles and doing calculations based on them. In that hinsight I can see the calculation guide page to be extended by  some things in your article, like the section about formatting you have, and a section about converting units (which should subsequently be erased from the calculations page). I think incorporating links to cinematic time and calc stacking into it would also help.


      This is at least my opinon on things. If everyone else thinks having all explanations twice is meaningful then that is fine with me as well. As said it does no harm, except causing more work.


      That said two things about the current version of the article: The criterias on if something is considered lightning and in which case one uses or not uses KE should be added, as otherwise it will increase the amount of calcs that do that wrong.

        Loading editor
    • @DontTalk

      Thank you for the evaluation.

        Loading editor
    • This is pretty cool.

        Loading editor
    • Thank you guys. It already looks great! Now I wonder how to merge images to make my calc (I was going to do a calc for a certain verse to see what the verse did wrong for evasion speed...)

        Loading editor
    • @DontTalk

      The thing about the Calculation Guide page is that it is basically just a reference sheet of values for me at this point. It doesn't really provide detailed steps to the point that the uninitiated can follow it, which is the problem.

      I personally don't see the problem with two pages, with one being more encompassing and linking to all the other pages. I don't see how it would be that much more work once implemented since the pages are rarely updated as-is.

      It seems like almost everyone here is enthusiastic about this new page, but if it is an issue we can just incorporate what I have currently made into the existing page, or absorb all the info of the existing page into the new page. I don't know the ins and outs of Wiki management, but I personally don't see the harm in having two. I'll leave that up to the content mods and admins, though.

      With all that said, I mean no disrespect toward you or your opinion about this, and thank you for giving your time to evaluate this.

      @Arbitrary

      Alright, I'll add that in when I update the page to V2.0

        Loading editor
    • I personally do not mind an easy to follow introduction page in addition to the more indepth ones.

        Loading editor
    • With hope I can manage to make this new page both. But I personally have no desire to see any existing page removed.

        Loading editor
    • Assaltwaffle wrote:
      @DontTalk

      The thing about the Calculation Guide page is that it is basically just a reference sheet of values for me at this point. It doesn't really provide detailed steps to the point that the uninitiated can follow it, which is the problem.

      Thing is the existing calculation pages should ideally be useable. In other words if you think they are written in such a way that the uninitiated can't follow them they should be rewritten so that they can, so or so.

      The explosion yield page is for example already nothing but a step by step guide to the calculation. Similar the earthquake calculations pages.

      Essentially your article and all the calculation pages fulfill exactly the same purpose. It is by no means harmful and if everyone wants the article, as it seems, that is fine. I just consider it redundant given that one could update the existing pages with better instructions to fulfill the purpose equally well.

        Loading editor
    • @DontTalk

      Would you be willing to make the previously existing instruction pages easier to follow?

        Loading editor
    • @Ant

      The thing about the current Calc guide is that it isn't detailed enough and is so vague that would need a complete redo in order to serve as a true guide.

      It seems like pretty much everyone has agreed that my current page is easier to follow and more informative. If you would like me to take all the info in the calculation guide page and essentially absorb it into what I already have I can do that, but I think having a very detailed and beginner-friendly page as well as a more rough outline page is not as problem, as they would be usable as a guide and reference, respectively.

        Loading editor
    • I am not particularly good at explaining things. 

      I mean a good chunck of those pages are written by me, which is certainly part of the reason they aren't easy to follow yet.

      I could try.

      Or given that everybody wants the new page we could simply have that. In that case I can improve the explanations on the pages later, by orientating myself on the better written explanations there. That would make things even more redundant, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


      In any case if nobody minds, could someone unlock the calculation pages? I think we should in any case solve the navigation issue, so I would like to go around and insert "See also"-sections into the articles.

        Loading editor
    • Not to interupt DT, but I am going to list off the current propositions for updating the page.

      • Add link to watchframebyframe
      • Add latent heat explanation
      • Add latent heat values
      • Add common conversion values
      • Add airburst formula emphasis in explosions guide
      • Add Lina's Mountain/Island quickie
      • Add Lightspeed and Lightyear explanation
      • Add Example Calcs for common methods

      Anything I am missing?

        Loading editor
    • Kinetic energy feats and feats underwater? Of stuff involving water, like whirlpools.

        Loading editor
    • I am actually unfamiliar with any multiplier for underwater movement. I would appreciate anyone who would be able to help with giving me this information.

        Loading editor
    • I personally think we need a few more examples listed in the Calc Stacking page; primarily the multiple hits fallacy. Example would be that character A has an attack that was calc'd at 2 Gigajoules or Building level, and it takes exactly 30 hits for him to kill character B, and the cacl member decided to simply multiply the 2*30 = 60 Gigajoules and rate his durability at City Block level. Reason that doesn't work is because if character B has durability 30x greater than character A's attack potency, character B should be completely invulnerable to character A outside of hax/durability negation. It's better to just scale to the first hit and treat every other hit as a stamina feat rather than a stacked durability feat.

        Loading editor
    • Assaltwaffle wrote: @Ant

      The thing about the current Calc guide is that it isn't detailed enough and is so vague that would need a complete redo in order to serve as a true guide.

      It seems like pretty much everyone has agreed that my current page is easier to follow and more informative. If you would like me to take all the info in the calculation guide page and essentially absorb it into what I already have I can do that, but I think having a very detailed and beginner-friendly page as well as a more rough outline page is not as problem, as they would be usable as a guide and reference, respectively.

      Okay. I am personally fine with both guide and reference pages complementing each other.

        Loading editor
    • I know it's a work in progress but the current page looks very messy and hard to understand, I'm just worried that even if it gets cleaned up the sheer amount of pages like this will just confuse them. It might be better to learn from experience like I did, but that can cause problems in of it's own.

        Loading editor
    • In what way does it look messy? It is detailed and the majority of the users here have said that they have learned from it even without the additions I am planning for it. This isn't about getting better at calcing, this is about initiating people into the realm of calcing and having a composite resource for calc information, formulas, and the like.

        Loading editor
    • Are you referring to the new page or the older ones?

      http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/User:Assaltwaffle/Sandbox

        Loading editor
    • The new one.


      It's supposed to be an introduction for beginners, but you have this on the very first heading:

      Now that you have time frame, you need a distance. This can be gathered a variety of ways. If a something within the feat gives you a distance (e.g. Flash stating he just ran around the city), take this and convert whatever distance covered into meters; this conversion to meters applies for pixel scaling and angsizing. Whatever your result is, it must be in meters! The next option is pixel scaling, which will be most commonly used. In order to pixel scale, you will need a program capable of both capturing images and altering them. Two seperate programs can be used to achieve this, or a single program if applicable. Gyazo and Paint.net can be used for image capture and alteration, respectively. If you are capturing a YouTube, video try to include the full screen for reference, which is 854x480 pixels when capturing with Gyazo. Once you are able to begin pixel scaling, bring up the full image and begin working. If the distance you want to measure isn't easily found, put it into perspective with another object/character in the shot! You will not always be graced with knowing the distance or height of what you want, so get creative. If there is an adult man in the shot, measure him in pixels and take the average height for men, which is approximately 177 centimeters, and find out how many centimeters/meters each pixel is worth. Once you have this, you can work from there. Sometimes you may need to scale an object to something of known height (X) to an unknown height object (Y) and apply the now found object (Y) height to a new object (Z) that wasn't previously scale-able, due to the lack of a known distance object on screen. Once you have determined how many meters/centimeters a pixel is worth, measure the distance in question to determine the real distance covered. To angsize, follow the guide on our Calculation Guide page. Remember to convert to meters if you were using any other measurement! Feel free to use Google's hypotenuse calculator or input the formula yourself (c=a^2+b^2, where a^2+b^2 is under the square root symbol). If the distance can be determined by a 90 degree angle, do so to save yourself the time! Paint.net has a built-in angular indicator for the line function.

      ^All that could just simply be explained in the Calculation Guide's angsizing section. Instead you start throwing in X, Y and Z and giving complicated explanations to them when they are already on the wiki in a simpler format. You even link the page I'm talking about.

      And that Note bit is VERY confusing. Why would the distance need to be perfectly angled in the first place? I've never seen that in any page, not calc ever. This one might just be my own ignorance, but surely you just plug the angle regardless and the size and the calculator gives you the distance right?

      The Speed Calc by Comparison has too many steps, I mean the lightning/projectile dodging pages has a simple equation that most can easily understand as soon as they see.

      I might have overblown the whole thing though, and it's seems like only the speed bit if confusing, everything else is fine.

        Loading editor
    • How is that hard to follow? At all? The note is very simplistic and I don't think anyone else but you is having a problem understanding it.

      It doesn't have too many steps, it is supposed to be a hand-holding walkthrough of how to do such a calc. Throwing an equation at someone with no info isn't going to do much. I didn't learn how to do lightning dodges from that formula; I did it by looking at the process that multiple calcs took to get a result and went from there. I would prefer it be easier to do than trying to find lightning dodge blogs, although I even recommend doing such for practice.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Assaltwaffle. Please stop giving the calc group members a hard time.

        Loading editor
    • I can link to that blog, @Reppuzan. Would you think that should go under tips, formulas, or something new?

        Loading editor
    • Well I am going to put this page into V2.0 tomorrow. Going to revise grammar, try to clean it further, and add everything that has been suggested. Once that is completed, I believe it will be ready to use, unless someone else has something they wanted added that I haven't already listed above. For reference, here is what I am planning to add.

      • Add link to watchframebyframe
      • Add latent heat explanation
      • Add latent heat values
      • Add common conversion values
      • Add airburst formula emphasis in explosions guide
      • Add Lina's Mountain/Island quickie
      • Add Lightspeed and Lightyear explanation
      • Add Example Calcs for common methods
        Loading editor
    • Shouldn't there be like a quick explanation on what joules, tons, and foes are? And how stuff like petatons and petaFoe work?

      Other than that, I think it will be an awesome guide for new calcers.

        Loading editor
    • I don't think I need to explain the petatons/foes. They are just prefixes. I can link to a list of prefixes though. Also joule, ton, and foe are already explained in the values page, though I can elaborate on this further if desired. I just don't want to add too much to it; I already have a lot.

        Loading editor
    • Alright then. That was just a nitpick though, I think its perfect.

        Loading editor
    • A FOE is just 10^44 joules.

      As for the prefixes, here's a simple list.

      • 1000 Tons of TNT = 1 Kiloton
      • 1000 Kilotons = 1 Megaton
      • 1000 Megatons = 1 Gigaton
      • 1000 Gigatons = 1 Teraton
      • 1000 Teratons = 1 Petaton
      • 1000 Petatons = 1 Exaton
      • 1000 Exatons = 1 Zettaton
      • 1000 Zettatons = 1 Yottaton
      • 1000 Yottatons = 1 Ninaton*
      • 1000 Ninatons = 1 Tenaton*
      • 1000 Tenatons = 1 Tenakiloton*
      *means unofficial unit.

      The same goes for FOE, just replace the -ton with FOE.

        Loading editor
    • So the order of more potent values is Joules, Tons, then FOE? 

      With joule being the most basic unit?

      If thats true then I understand it now.

        Loading editor
    • Yes. Joule is the most basic unit. 1 Ton of TNT is exactly what it sounds like. A Foe is the energy from a supernova. So, Dark, do you think I should add the prefixes to my page or would that be unnecessary clutter?

        Loading editor
    • We already have a table for it, so just linking that could probably work.

        Loading editor
    • Alright, then I'll just link directly to it.

        Loading editor
    • Again, thank you for the help with improving this wiki.

        Loading editor
    • No problem, Ant. I'll make the finishing touches on the page tomorrow.

        Loading editor
    • A few more resources I use but forgot to link:

        Loading editor
    • Thanks, Dark. You're really helping me out.

        Loading editor
    • Alright, the grammar makeover is completed. Now it is time for me to get to the additions and V2.0 with be completed!

        Loading editor
    • Version 2.0 has been completed! If everyone is satisfied with this version, this should be usable.

      Edit: Thanks goes out to everyone who has helped out so far, the staff who have overseen this process, and especially to Darkanine for all of his aid. This would not have made it to this point without all of your contributions.

      Honestly this thing is my lovechild; I have spent many, many hours gathering all the sources, composing, compiling, and writing this. I hope it is satisfactory to everyone who put stock in me doing this.

        Loading editor
    • Looks awesome.

        Loading editor
    • I am not very familiar with calculation methods, but the page itself looks good, so as long as the other calc group members approve, it should be fine to use.

      Just make sure to check through it for accidental spelling errors. I corrected one myself.

        Loading editor
    • @Ant

      I have just done so. I found 1 more. I do not believe there are any more spelling mistakes.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. Let's wait a bit for some other calc group members to comment, and then the page should hopefully be good to go.

        Loading editor
    • Since this is important, you can place notices on their message walls if you wish.

        Loading editor
    • I will do so shortly.

        Loading editor
    • Okay.

        Loading editor
    • I have now invited all calc members to this thread.

        Loading editor
    • Thank you.

        Loading editor
    • I'm completely okay with the current draft, sans some minor issues I already informed Assalt about, but nothing major.

        Loading editor
    • I have since corrected both of those issues, as well.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. It is probably best to wait for input from more people first though.

        Loading editor
    • It seems to explain most of the basics, though I do think it would be nice to include the method to do slicing feats, which is the the formula for force of shearing.

        Loading editor
    • Oh yeah, that would be a nice addition. Here's a blog detailing a calc using shearing if you need reference, it admittedly doesn't come up often so I can understand if you don't know the method.

        Loading editor
    • Here's another one if you need it. Both of these were by Alaka... Who's no longer here ;-;

        Loading editor
    • I can link the blog in the lesser know AP methods, but I personally don't know much about shearing force.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah that can work, it can be useful since at the beginning I had absolutely no clue on how to do slicing feats (and could not find anyone who knows), so I do think we should list it in some way

        Loading editor
    • Im fine with page.

        Loading editor
    • Well, I think that it can be created as a regular page then.

        Loading editor
    • Can I do so? (if nobody already has)

        Loading editor
    • I think Assalt should make it since he poured in the most effort into it, unless he doesn't want to or have the time.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, Assaltwaffle should preferably handle it.

        Loading editor
    • This is a darn good idea.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with such a page being created, though I think we should be not very nice on it and it be very strict and stringent tbh.

        Loading editor
    • FanofRPGs wrote:
      I agree with such a page being created, though I think we should be not very nice on it and it be very strict and stringent tbh.

      Nani?

        Loading editor
    • Alrighty.

        Loading editor
    • FanofRPGs wrote: I agree with such a page being created, though I think we should be not very nice on it and it be very strict and stringent tbh.

      Why should it be strict? I designed this to be as welcoming and friendly as possible. It is supposed to encourage people to start calcing so the Calc group can bolster our ranks in the future, not turn away would-be calcers even more than they may already be turned off.

      @Ant

      After I add shearing force to the lesser known AP section I'll be glad to make it. Should I copy-paste everything I have into a page or is there another format I need to use?

        Loading editor
    • yeah, Idk why it would be strict myself.

        Loading editor
    • You can probably just copy-paste the text. Just make sure to check up that there is no bulky code (that I have to clean up) accidentally inserted into the page, as the wiki's programming is glitchy.

        Loading editor
    • What would classify as "bulky code"?

        Loading editor
    • DontTalkDT wrote:

      That said two things about the current version of the article: The criterias on if something is considered lightning and in which case one uses or not uses KE should be added, as otherwise it will increase the amount of calcs that do that wrong.

      ^That is btw. something that should be added.

        Loading editor
    • What would you prefer me say about it? Haven't our rules changes so that if the electrical current has building level or higher AP accept it as lightning?

      Also KE's rule is just not to use it for FTL feats, correct?

        Loading editor
    • @Assaltwaffle

      You might be able to solve the problem by reading and linking to the Lightning Dodging Feats and Kinetic Energy Feats pages.

        Loading editor
    • I was thinking about linking those pages.

      So you're saying that there shouldn't be links like this

      http://vsbattles.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Alakabamm/Juliet_Starling_UFO_Slicing_Feat

      But rather this

      User blog:Alakabamm/Juliet Starling UFO Slicing Feat

      Is that what you mean?

        Loading editor
    • I just mentioned linking to the pages to follow DontTalk's suggestions.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, and I will do it, as per DT's suggestions. So am I correct with the links issue?

        Loading editor
    • Well, you could just link them like this instead:

      Juliet Starling UFO Slicing Feat

      [[User blog:Alakabamm/Juliet Starling UFO Slicing Feat|Juliet Starling UFO Slicing Feat]]

        Loading editor
    • Assaltwaffle wrote:
       Haven't our rules changes so that if the electrical current has building level or higher AP accept it as lightning?

      Also KE's rule is just not to use it for FTL feats, correct?

      Nah, that lightning has to be building level is an additional requirement to the requirements that were necessary prior. So all prior requirements still have to be met.

      But as Antvasima said, the pages explain what are the current requirements. You can just copy them from there.

        Loading editor
    • Alright, I'll start making adjustments. Now I just need to settle on a name for the page. Perhaps we should rename our current Calculation Guide page to "Calculation Rough Guide", or something similar, since it doesn't go as in depth as my page (which may also have "guide" in the title).

        Loading editor
    • Maybe we could call it "Calculations Introduction" or something like that instead?

        Loading editor
    • I think "Calculations Introduction and References" would be good, if it isn't too wordy. Or "Introduction to Calculations and References". Or simply "Introduction to Calculations". I mean I will probably be using this page just for the number of references in it, and I don't think I need an introduction :P

      Also I have just gone through and cleaned up all the Wiki links. They are now the shorter format.

        Loading editor
    • I meant that we could rename the old page "Calculation Introduction", and call your new page "Calculation Guide" instead.

        Loading editor
    • Hmm. I mean my page is geared toward beginners moreso than the old page. I only worry about that being somewhat misleading.

        Loading editor
    • Okay, then I suppose that we could simply call your page "Calculations Introduction and References".

        Loading editor
    • I am fine with that. If everything is sorted and ready, I believe I am ready to make that page.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. I am going to bed now, but I can add links to the front page and the wiki navigation bar tomorrow.

        Loading editor
    • I have updated the front page and the wiki navigation bar.

        Loading editor
    • Appreciated. Thanks for your help with this, Ant.

        Loading editor
    • No problem. I will close this thread then.

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message