## FANDOM

25,508 Pages

• Let me see if I get it right ...

Let's say a character A was calculated to have Mach 50 in a scene. In another scene, he attempted to attack character B, who deviated a few yards from him, when character A was inches from his face.

If I scale character A as having Mach 50, will I be using Calc Stacking?

• if you scale charater B to Charater A then it would not be calc stacking.

• Character B moved several meters, before character A could hit him for example, 20cm off his face.

If I make a calculation, considering that the character B has covered 10m of character A, to dodge his attack 20cm from his face, will I be using Calc Stacking?

• yes

• From what I understand.

1. Character A travelled 4 meters before Character B's fist which was 20cm away from his face could hit him. We have a calc that Character B is Mach 50, therefore using that speed as our base we can calc a new speed for Character A. <--- Calc Stacking. Using the result of one speed calc to make another speed calc.

2. Character A effortlessly dodged an attack from Character B and moved a considerable distance before he could even get close. We know Character B is Mach 50, so Character A would have to at least be Mach 50, likely higher. <--- Not Calc Stacking. Just powerscaling someone to the speed of a person they can blitz.

• Sounds more like 1.

But ... Why should not I make a new speed calculation for character B based on that? This sounds extremely incoherent, it's as if we said that character A does not have Mach 50 when attacking a character B.

Would this make the calculation invalid, even though the character is the strongest in their respective Universe? Becoming incoherent, even if it's a EoS feat?

• Because this leads to highly inflated results that are inconsistent with characters' actual portrayal.

As our Calc Stacking page says, "The reason it is usually disregarded is because it has shown itself inconsistent many times and usually gives inflated results.Â Through the method any long running franchises could also scale their stats infinitely upwards without actually ever showing any feats in the range they are listed."

In a system like this, actual speed feats no longer matter. Any fightingÂ seriesÂ can eventually get to FTL and beyond as long as there are enough episodes. Making it that a show's runtime determines if one verse is faster than another.

We still acknowledge that Character A is far faster than Character B. But we don't stack results to get an insanely inflated number.

• But if we have the exact measurements (not likely to normally happen, I know) why would the calc not be allowed?Â

And how would the results inflate?

• @Monarch Laciel Again, because Calc Stacking is a method that (while may be logical in some aspects) leads to extremely inflated results and eventually values runtime over geniune feats or portrayals.Â

It inflates by constantly adding higher and higher results from previous calculations to create new ones. Over time numbers would just get absurd. Especially when you're Calc Stacking using FTL values and above.

I didn't create these rules. I'm just explaining to the best of my knowledge why the older staff here has implemented them.Â

The user DontTalk could explain this vastly better than I can.

• OK... Thanks.

• @MostPowerfull No problem.

• @Ryukama Buddy... What do you think of the quantifications? For example ... A character in transformation B increased his attributes by 10x in relation to transformation A because he had a feat calculated in transformation B, being 10x greater than transformation A.

Would this also qualify as Calc Stacking? Or is it valid?

• We've used (reliable) multipliers before. Such as Kaioken from Dragon Ball and Raiden's Ripper Mode. But again, the multipliers have to be deemed reliable and not inconsistent or contradicted by other feats/statements/showings.

• So ... As a reliable quantification and without contradictions, is it accepted?

• From what I understand, yes.

• Ok... Thanks again!

• Again, not a problem at allÂ :)

• So for instance Jin Mo Ri's Limit Removal - is this a valid multiplier?

• I wouldn't know enough about the series to say whether or not it is, but it seems that the multiplier is used on his profile.

• Monarch Laciel wrote: So for instance Jin Mo Ri's Limit Removal - is this a valid multiplier?

Jins multipliers are shown and I believe stated to increase all his stats based on the amount he goes by so it wouldn't be bad to use(it's like goku with his kaioken technique.)

However it's best not to accidentally abuse that multiplier (for example in Jin performs this new feat and gets like high end large star level but he did this without stating to use NA bong, than he gets the multiplier, however if he's already using the multiplier for the same feat than it would not be used for said results of the calc.

• I have a question about calc stacking.

If a character performed the exact same feat as another in the same scene (given that their attack speed is the same), and the feat was calculated for the other one as MHS, can you use that value for KE of the other, and further more, can you use KE when they change to weigh more?

• Well obviously we wouldn't consider using the effects of his limit removed state for a calc of a feat that isn't in his limit removed state.

But we do consider his power is definitely multipled by the amount he uses like Kaio Ken?

• @Monarch yes that's why he's solar system level and MFTL+ with his Na Bong X 250,000

• Also considered Calc Stacking, can I quantify the boost that a character had, using calculations?

For example ... The character A in base form was calculated as Mach 1 and is Island level. After transforming or receiving some kind of boost, he had a new calculation, which left him Mach 10 and Large Island level

Could I quantify and say that its transformation has increased by 10x its attributes? Or could it be considered illegitimate?

Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.