Remember me
[Forgot password?] [Register]

Profile: Souls

ProfileLatest VotesLatest FriendsLatest Posts (one month back)

Name: Souls


Last seen: 10-17-2016

Account type: Regular

Registration date: 12-13-2010

Posts: 16,551

Reputation: 256thumbs-up

Previously known as

Accelerator until 05-27-2011
Massive Child Porn watching faggot until 06-04-2011
Accelerator. until 03-19-2012
The Original Accelerator until 09-16-2012
Souls until 01-20-2014
Nena until 08-01-2014
Kamen Rider Soul until 01-29-2015

03-28-2015 from Louay
thumbs-up "lol at the people below me."

02-21-2015 from HelIy
thumbs-up "Always remember that I've won ;)"

02-19-2015 from Mister Teal
thumbs-up ""

02-19-2015 from Beyonder
thumbs-up "R.I.P You will be missed "Banned permanent from *"

02-18-2015 from Beast Of Prey
thumbs-side "RIP"

02-16-2015 from Nerd
thumbs-up "rip in pieces. Coolest vs mod ever."

02-11-2015 from Giorno Giovanna
thumbs-down "RIP"

02-10-2015 from Shu-ulath
thumbs-up "Requiascat in pace, Sawls :("

02-10-2015 from Alexander.
thumbs-up "RIP in Pieces"

02-10-2015 from Kashmir

[Reputation Details]



DFO Zealot

Who the hell do you think i am







[Friend Details]

User Page

The Gunboat Diplomat wrote: I dislike this whole usage of busting tiers in VS, since it reduces all context to just a blurb. The same applies to attacking potency

By just slapping figures onto things, and then sorting them into categories based on them, vital context is removed, such as the power output, contact area, momentum, form, etc. Nor can the strength be found solely through the destruction it causes, and AP is a dumb VS concept. Everything varies on a case by case basis, and these labels do nothing to help in an actual debate, and you’re (I’ve probably exhausted this analogy by now, but I’ll keep using it) just basically comparing trading card stats. Context is everything, and these blurb figures and tiers in reality do little to help.

And on that subject; attacking potency is also fairly silly. All that it really typically shows is the effectiveness of a certain attack on something; but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll have that same effect elsewhere. You can’t just automatically say “the attack power of an attack of a certain magnitude is focused into a smaller AoE attack which’ll have the same effect." For example, let’s say Character A cuts Character B with a sword. Character B has previously been shown to resist a high heat laser which vapourized a building. “Durr, Character A has building+ potency”. Except that it doesn’t mean anything. It’s an application of pressure vs an increase in molecular energy. But let’s say Character B tanks a pressure wave instead. Okay, Character A exerts more pressure than said pressure wave. Which means he can exert a lot of pressure via his sword. But what happens if Character A fights Character C, who has an energy shield? Then pressure means jack shit, and by extension, Character A’s so-called building level potency.

For example, let’s look at a MAC and Eezo mass accelerator. They’re both in the multi-kiloton range; “town level”. Okay, but in a space battle, MACs will be wrecking much more, with their massive size and momentum; thus, higher DC. But however, these shots still carry comparable kinetic energies; so, potency, amirite? Each shot, however still be relatively equal in strength against energy shields, so it’s all good. But then what about against a force field? The Eezo round has little momentum, and thus will be much less effective. So much for “potency”. Then there’s power output, the Eezo accelerator is going to have a much higher power output then the latter, making it superior when it comes down bringing down shielding. And this is just comparing between 2 mass accelerators; in reality, attack and defense mechanics become so varied and complex, that DC/AP busting levels become absolutely useless (eg, lasers being obsolete).

Eien wrote:

Souls wrote: You guys are so fucking vague.
If you have an issue fucking spit it out

Ok then. You want me to tell you. I’ll tell you. I was trying to be nice but nah man. You asked for it. literally.

mistake number 1: You wrote a fanfic about a white 19 yr old who ends up giving some random black dude heads (HE HAS AN 8” DICK! WTF?!?!?) thus cheating on her BF.

mistake number 2: Mate... if your purpose of this was to enforce stereotypes and show that you know nothing about sex, 100%. If not, then you fucked up so badly I want to cry. Sex does not drive a girl crazy like that in real life. This is not fifty shades of grey, nor is it porn or hentai. This is real life. You have a severe misconception of sex if you really think that it’s like this.

mistake number 3: “Procreate” nope nope and nope. Is this an R.E lesson? Did I get an A question in my RE paper wrong? Are you trying to subtly give me the definition of a keyword that’ll help me pick up one mark in my GCSE paper? Look. I don’t write sex stories, i write fantasy. But that was wrong. Don’t say procreate. “An unsuppressable desire and filthy lust came over her. She wanted to have sex, to feel his penis slide inside of her dripping sex." That would suffice.

mistake number 4: I cringed at your inability to write. I am so sorry. Nah actually I’m not sorry. Bitch you can’t write for shit!

mistake number 5: Asking me to be brutally honest with a bad piece of writing.

The Lounge Forums © ApS 2012 - Privacy Policy - Disclaimer - FAQ - Contact