- 34,569
- 35,007
@Dalesean027 I'm hoping that you can give us your vote on this topic within the next day or so, when you're ready. There's been some more responses but no major counter-arguments to the majority of my post.
-
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.
Onigashima, Flower Capital and the Bajrang Gun
- Thread starter Nami_Kami
- Start date
-
- Tags
- one piece (verse)
- Status
Bananossauro
They/Them- 106
- 64
Yeah. I get that.
My main point is, if Bajrang is relative to a significant portion to the island, heck, even like, 1/5 of the island, unless the island is very very small, it's a bit much to use drago kaido being a few times smaller than it as an argument, because as the scan Damage3245 posted, he is only a few times thicker than G3. That would mean that a dozen G3 could mark its diameter.
Like, dragon Kaido can't be scaled to its fire form as it does not only goes against the 50km size, but would also go against any size higher than a few hundred meters for the island.
- 24,307
- 37,735
They're not wrong
- 320
- 291
- Thread starter
- #124
If we pick up all the panels of Dragon Kaido next to the Flame Cloak, they all give us the same result, which is that the difference isn't as large as you say. The narrative tells us the fist is smaller than the island, so the claim the fist is drawn to scale with Onigashima falls apart. Why not compare the Bajrang Gun to Kaido, the person that directly engaged with the attack, instead?
Bananossauro
They/Them- 106
- 64
Nobody is saying that the fist is = to the island, at least, I'm not doing that and I'm pretty sure the current calc is not the size or bigger than the island so that is a weird thing to say because even if smaller, its aways shown in a significant size compared to it.
But even so, if bajrang is not to scale with the island and kaido is not to scale with the island, how does this conversation say anything about the size of onigashima? I confess that I'm getting a bit lost here.
But even so, if bajrang is not to scale with the island and kaido is not to scale with the island, how does this conversation say anything about the size of onigashima? I confess that I'm getting a bit lost here.
- 320
- 291
- Thread starter
- #126
The current calc actually does. Besides it's shown comparable to Kaido and his Flame Cloak in every panel. If there is no perfect size for it then that just puts the current calculation for the Bajrang Gun to doubt.
The thread is about more than just Onigashima, and the specific point you responded to was about the Bajrang Gun. If you're looking for arguments about Onigashima's size, reffer to the other points.
- 34,569
- 35,007
I grant that there are some panels where the Bajrang Gun appears in a relative size to Onigashima - but there also multiple panels where the Bajrang Gun can be seen in the same frame as Kaido and his Flame Dragon Torch. If neither option can be objectively relied upon due to cancelling each other out then what is the best solution? Completely ignore one form of scaling in favor of the other? Because Oda didn't draw Kaido being comparable to his Flame Dragon Torch just once, but twice in the manga. The anime also shows the moment the Flame Dragon Torch gets dispelled and shows Kaido relative to it.
Anyway - the Flame Dragon Torch point becomes redundant if Onigashima itself is much smaller than what has currently been calced. The Bajrang Gun by association would end up smaller.
- 24,307
- 37,735
The entire point of the Bajrang Gun is to be so ginormous that it's comparable to Onigashima, whether larger or smaller, but comparable.
Please don't try to say "it's not as big as Onigashima it's actually barely bigger than Kaidou"
Please don't try to say "it's not as big as Onigashima it's actually barely bigger than Kaidou"
- 34,569
- 35,007
Very well, I have retracted that point from my original post. It wasn't a very important argument for it, just a supporting one. We can move on from that now and hopefully let this thread reach a conclusion.
Bananossauro
They/Them- 106
- 64
The link doesn't work for me but I checked it, my bad thought i've seen one calc that it was around 30km and that the island was 58km.
What do you mean by perfect size, how does one achieve that through a 2d drawn media and why would that not mean that it puts any and all calculation possible to doubt?
- 24,307
- 37,735
Yall gon have to learn a concept called "establishing shots"
- 21,521
- 36,092
I do agree with KT and Bananossauro regarding Bajrang Gun and its size relativity to Onigashima in size and by extension Kaido as well, I think its entirely foolish to say they aren't relative in size if that's what you're waiting on me for? kinda loosing the plot if ya argue otherwise
- 34,569
- 35,007
That point has already been retracted by me. Do you agree with the rest of the thread?
- 34,569
- 35,007
Hi, just bumping this so that it doesn't get forgotten about.
- 21,521
- 36,092
Were there any other new arguements or proposal made other than the Bajrang Gun stuff? If not then my previous vote should still be fine for lack of better options since no other recalcs or middle grounds have been made to bridge things
- 34,569
- 35,007
Okay then, so until a re-calc is made than you're not in favor of removing the current calc despite the arguments against it?
Only asking for clarity because your previous post on it was that the proposal was pretty convincing and nothing new has come up to dissaude that, but your last official vote was neutral.
Last edited:
- 24,307
- 37,735
Relax arguments will be on the way people are just busy
- 34,569
- 35,007
No worries about that; it's just been quiet for a few days with nobody indicating there'd be more arguments.
- 11,638
- 21,057
"Despite all my rage, I'm still just a rat in some jeans"
Bumping for engagement.
Bumping for engagement.
- 24,307
- 37,735
I'm super busy, unless @Kachon123 wants to respond, I can't. If I desire to I'll tackle it later, but I"m too busy to care rn
- 12,034
- 15,550
I agree with the three points issued by Damage here. This is honestly really clear to me.
I disagree with somethings mentioned in this thread, but it seems like those have been dropped, so I'll leave it at that.
Not interested in getting into a debate, but I'll keep an eye our for any more arguments/debunks. If my opinion changes, I'll of course let you all know.
I disagree with somethings mentioned in this thread, but it seems like those have been dropped, so I'll leave it at that.
Not interested in getting into a debate, but I'll keep an eye our for any more arguments/debunks. If my opinion changes, I'll of course let you all know.
- 34,569
- 35,007
Thank you for your evaluation.
- 34,569
- 35,007
As there are three votes in favor of the thread, and it's been practically a couple of weeks without major discussion on this, I think that there is sufficient support for this thread to be considered accepted. Thank you to everyone who participated in it.
A continuation thread to implemented the changes to the verse page and profiles can be found here.
A continuation thread to implemented the changes to the verse page and profiles can be found here.
- 18,196
- 19,625
I just counted evaluating staff votes:
Agree: 3 (Damage3245, Therefir, TheRustyOne)
Disagrees with arguments made, but some recalcs may be fine: 1 (Dalesean027 [One, Two, Three])
Disagree: 1 (CloverDragon03)
I don't think three agrees and two disagrees is sufficient support to conclude. Reopening this.
Agree: 3 (Damage3245, Therefir, TheRustyOne)
Disagrees with arguments made, but some recalcs may be fine: 1 (Dalesean027 [One, Two, Three])
Disagree: 1 (CloverDragon03)
I don't think three agrees and two disagrees is sufficient support to conclude. Reopening this.
- 14,997
- 10,382
@KingTempest also disagrees
- 6,434
- 4,297
Not a calc group member
- 5,071
- 4,091
Just curious, why is Dale in "disagrement" section instead of neutral?
- 34,569
- 35,007
A neutral vote is not a disagree vote, so that's three agrees to 1 disagree. And that one disagreeing staff member has not came back to the thread for some time too.
I believe a 3 to 1 majority after roughly 2 weeks of no further discussion or counter-arguments is enough to conclude this.
- 18,196
- 19,625
Why would he be in neutral? He explicitly disagreed with the reasons provided for downgrading.
EDIT: The idea that he was neutral came from Damage saying he's neutral before he returned to say he disagrees with the arguments presented to downgrade, only for Damage to declare that a neutral vote.
Last edited:
- 34,569
- 35,007
He disagreed with some arguments. That doesn't mean disagreeing with the entire proposal. He also said here that the arguments were pretty convincing.
His evaluation here was that he couldn't "definitively say nor does he want to be the sole deciding factor", and then he later stated that his previous vote was still fine. He was put in the neutral section in the OP, and he didn't contest that.
- 34,569
- 35,007
If it is going to be an issue, then we can simply get clarification from the CGM himself. @Dalesean027 Are you neutral on the thread? Or do you disagree with it? Or do you agree with the proposal?
- 18,196
- 19,625
The closest I could find to that was in post 101 where he said:
So. Not all of the arguments for downgrading were sound. Some recalcs (which you haven't yet proposed, afaik) could be promising, but he can't definitively say.
It sounds like you're linking "can't definitively say" to the idea of the arguments for downgrading being sound in general, rather than to any potential recalcs. But if we look at his later posts, such as post 107:
He disagrees with the arguments presented to downgrade, but is not opposed to recalcs.
In post 132:
He agrees with KT, in disagreeing with you over the Bajrang Gun.
You continued to ask about other parts of the thread, to which he said in post 135:
If there were no other arguments, stick with his previous view, since no recalcs have been presented. You initially interpreted this as him disagreeing with the current calc being removed.
He also said there that he would wait on counterarguments. When those came around, he like'd them, and later explicitly said that he agreed with them.
Not everyone pays attention to that sort of thing. I put his words over him not acknowledging an edited OP.
Yeah that works.
- 34,569
- 35,007
@Agnaa Perhaps I misinterpeted. Dalesean's posts didn't look like an explicit rejection of the thread to me.
But we'll get clarification from him now before this goes further.
I didn't interpret that as him disagreeing with it. Not being in favor of something isn't the same as being opposed to it.
But we'll get clarification from him now before this goes further.
- 24,307
- 37,735
If the evaluations we got ain’t enough I’ll drop sum later today
no need to clutter this thread with “but I think he means this vs that”
- 20,350
- 30,636
Also, I’m all for keeping this open for further deliberation, but for precedence/future thread’s sake: the “I don’t think 3-2 can close a thread” is that a written rule somewhere or is Agnaa pulling that from thin air? Cuz if so, that’s a neat opinion, but it doesn’t mean much beyond that.
And again, before someone crashes out, no I’m not saying close this thread rn
I’m just asking a question.
And again, before someone crashes out, no I’m not saying close this thread rn
I’m just asking a question.
- 21,521
- 36,092
I just woke up... erm I hope that @Dalesean027 guy everyone's looking for answers 
- 21,521
- 36,092
I am typing something up tho so just bare with me
- 24,307
- 37,735
So I'm back and since this thread is still going I'll just drop my points for @Therefir and @TheRustyOne and maybe @Agnaa to see since they only got 1 side before everyone else conceded.
Wano is a multi country nation which, again, is astronomically big when the entire nation of Wano is being considered.
It takes people entire days on speeding creatures to cross across the nation.
For some reason Damage keeps ignoring the fact that downgrading Onigashima with this logic lead to them downgrading the country of Wano, as we can also see in the scans he sent (even without the diagrams) that the waterfall isn't too small compared to the multi-country archipelago of Wano, same goes with Wano's inner sea.
If we're using timeframe of walking down stairs to find a size, we can use the timeframe of walking across the country, which got this nation to an astronomical size due to every showing we see of them taking genuine hours to trek when even running.
For those who don't understand.
This is the "4.8 kilometer waterfall".
You can see that the entirety of the nation of Wano is the width of this cylindrical landmark while the height is the 4.8 kilometer landmark.
So Damage and the OP keep bringing up the depth (height) in order to disregard Onigashima... but they forget that this downgrades Wano.
Wano is so freaking big that the different towns there have different climates.
Wano is so big that the other towns are past the horizon. The horizon in One Piece is huge, as a 50km river can be seen past the horizon on sea level but you can't see the other towns WHILE STANDING ON A MOUNTAIN.
The point is that the walls are too inconsistent to be used to discredit the size of Onigashima. Because if you use the walls to discredit Onigashima, you use the walls to discredit Wano. And we can't discredit Wano, cause Wano is huge.
This is an argument of "interior vs exterior". And you note that we'd have to disregard every shot of the interior... yet you choose to disregard every shot of the exterior?
This is Onigashima a large distance away. Inbetween this distance can fit DOZENS of give or take hundred meter ships casually, and that doesn't even cover a portion of the actual much bigger ships pushing hundreds of meters dwarving the 56 meter ship.
Onigashima in itself has a mountain range. With your comment of "200 meter mountains" on a random island, even if we did use that drastic lowball, Onigashima would still contradict that 6km drop distance.
And even if that was the case, we both know it's not true.
With the height of the hills at the top of the island being bigger than the numbers, even if you put them at the new lowered sizes of ~35 meters and such, still has the hill being like 200 meters tall. With the ratio of sizes being 3 px of that 200+ meter hill compared to the 40-50 px mountains (The smallest mountain is 36.4 pixels tall, making it 3033.3333333333 meters tall. this is the SMALLEST MOUNTAIN there. The largest one is 74 pixels. It's over twice as large. Yet it's still smaller than like a quarter of the width of Onigashima, and that tallest mountain is over 6km tall.
The establishing shot of Onigashima in itself has a crack inside of it that dwarves the sunny and ships far bigger and such, but when we look at Onigashima as a whole, we can see that that several hundred-thousand meter gap is irrelevant in the grand scheme of the island.
You're mentioning "comparing small characters to large structures" not taking place, but your entire point of favoring the interior of Onigashima is... that you think using the characters inside is better than the establishing shots outside.
Not because it's flawed, but because of what a town is supposed to be.
This is a living space. They're not gonna draw the houses as dots.
Like yes we can agree the Flower Capital isn't 404 km wide but you're trying to argue "it's a big city, but it's actually really small, and Onigashima is even smaller"
Onigashima is huge. The Flower Capital is a living space. It's not gonna be drawn like Texas. Same way the Seireitei or Konoha is (accepted to be) massive and the buildings aren't noted to counter the sizes.
And no I'm not saying "hey they can have it why can't we?" I'm saying that authors aren't going to make living spaces look like dots because they wanna portray a place as massive.
We tried the same thing with Alubarna. It had a stated width and a stated showing, but because the mangaka didn't make key places look like shoe soles it had contention. And that thread didn't even pass. It got stonewalled cause "ahhhhhh small houses" even though it basically had a stated size.
I don't think we can genuinely use HOUSES in good faith to argue downgrades. Living spaces are going to look like livable areas
We know that the height of the waterfall is inconsistent with the actual size of Wano. Again. I don't know how much I need to drill this.
Wano is a multi country nation which, again, is astronomically big when the entire nation of Wano is being considered.
It takes people entire days on speeding creatures to cross across the nation.
For some reason Damage keeps ignoring the fact that downgrading Onigashima with this logic lead to them downgrading the country of Wano, as we can also see in the scans he sent (even without the diagrams) that the waterfall isn't too small compared to the multi-country archipelago of Wano, same goes with Wano's inner sea.
If we're using timeframe of walking down stairs to find a size, we can use the timeframe of walking across the country, which got this nation to an astronomical size due to every showing we see of them taking genuine hours to trek when even running.
For those who don't understand.
This is the "4.8 kilometer waterfall".
You can see that the entirety of the nation of Wano is the width of this cylindrical landmark while the height is the 4.8 kilometer landmark.
So Damage and the OP keep bringing up the depth (height) in order to disregard Onigashima... but they forget that this downgrades Wano.
Wano is so freaking big that the different towns there have different climates.
Wano is so big that the other towns are past the horizon. The horizon in One Piece is huge, as a 50km river can be seen past the horizon on sea level but you can't see the other towns WHILE STANDING ON A MOUNTAIN.
The point is that the walls are too inconsistent to be used to discredit the size of Onigashima. Because if you use the walls to discredit Onigashima, you use the walls to discredit Wano. And we can't discredit Wano, cause Wano is huge.
Many in fact.
This is an argument of "interior vs exterior". And you note that we'd have to disregard every shot of the interior... yet you choose to disregard every shot of the exterior?
This is Onigashima a large distance away. Inbetween this distance can fit DOZENS of give or take hundred meter ships casually, and that doesn't even cover a portion of the actual much bigger ships pushing hundreds of meters dwarving the 56 meter ship.
Onigashima in itself has a mountain range. With your comment of "200 meter mountains" on a random island, even if we did use that drastic lowball, Onigashima would still contradict that 6km drop distance.
And even if that was the case, we both know it's not true.
With the height of the hills at the top of the island being bigger than the numbers, even if you put them at the new lowered sizes of ~35 meters and such, still has the hill being like 200 meters tall. With the ratio of sizes being 3 px of that 200+ meter hill compared to the 40-50 px mountains (The smallest mountain is 36.4 pixels tall, making it 3033.3333333333 meters tall. this is the SMALLEST MOUNTAIN there. The largest one is 74 pixels. It's over twice as large. Yet it's still smaller than like a quarter of the width of Onigashima, and that tallest mountain is over 6km tall.
The establishing shot of Onigashima in itself has a crack inside of it that dwarves the sunny and ships far bigger and such, but when we look at Onigashima as a whole, we can see that that several hundred-thousand meter gap is irrelevant in the grand scheme of the island.
You're mentioning "comparing small characters to large structures" not taking place, but your entire point of favoring the interior of Onigashima is... that you think using the characters inside is better than the establishing shots outside.
This is your best point and I don't like it.
Not because it's flawed, but because of what a town is supposed to be.
This is a living space. They're not gonna draw the houses as dots.
Like yes we can agree the Flower Capital isn't 404 km wide but you're trying to argue "it's a big city, but it's actually really small, and Onigashima is even smaller"
Onigashima is huge. The Flower Capital is a living space. It's not gonna be drawn like Texas. Same way the Seireitei or Konoha is (accepted to be) massive and the buildings aren't noted to counter the sizes.
And no I'm not saying "hey they can have it why can't we?" I'm saying that authors aren't going to make living spaces look like dots because they wanna portray a place as massive.
We tried the same thing with Alubarna. It had a stated width and a stated showing, but because the mangaka didn't make key places look like shoe soles it had contention. And that thread didn't even pass. It got stonewalled cause "ahhhhhh small houses" even though it basically had a stated size.
I don't think we can genuinely use HOUSES in good faith to argue downgrades. Living spaces are going to look like livable areas
With all these points I'm honestly surprised you didn't make a recalc since you clearly have shown a bunch of ways to get a new size. But I digress.
- 24,307
- 37,735
Dale wanted to relay the message that his comment will be delayed, irl stuff
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
