About City Level (Outdated Guideline Accuracy Fix)

[Flashlight237]

You know how we have 6.3 megatons set as City Level? Yeah, that is a very outdated element from the Outskirts Battledome that we took and still wore as a badge. See, the minimum was based on the OBD guideline that used an old Javascript nuke calculator, with said calculator only being accurate to the tenths. The guy who invented the guideline over at the Outskirts Battledome didn't really check the accuracy of that one; he just took 6.3 megatons and rolled with it.

Both the old Javascript calculator this page (which the inventor of the City Level guideline used), the guideline's inventor, and our Explosion Yield Calculations page used the formula in this page to determine the power of nuclear explosions at certain levels: https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html

The formula is described as such: r_blast=Y^0.33 * constant_bl, with the yield being represented in kilotons, constant_bl being 0.28 at 20 psi of overpressure (enough to warrant near-100% fatalities). r_blast in the case of City Level's guideline is set at exactly 5 km.

Running it all back, here's what I got.:

5/0.28=17.85714286
0.33√(17.85714286)=6213.976623 kilotons

If we were to round that to the nearest tenth (based on our Attack Potency page) or even the nearest hundredths (which most Calc Group members consider a bare minimum from what I've observed), the value doesn't come anywhere close to the old OBD guideline we grabbed.

I posted this thread here in the Calc Group Discussion forum since it would affect calculations the most and even then... Meh, I've seen smaller differences being applied onto the wiki, specifically the change from 214.35 to 214 J/cm³ for rock pulverization (a measly 0.16% difference!). A 1.6% difference is one order of magnitude bigger than that change. If anything, I think it would make a bigger difference in Small City Level than City Level, basically like this:

Small City Level+: 3.65-->3.6 megatons (1.37%)
City Level: 6.3-->6.2 megatons (1.59%)
City Level+: 53.15-->53.1 megatons (0.094%)

Tier differences would be as such:

Low 7-B to 7-B: 6.3x-->6.2x
7-B to 7-A: ~15.9-->~16.1x

A more current value is going to be seen as more accurate than an older value unless deliberately wrong. That's how the academic world worked.

 

[CloverDragon03]

This is a change of 0.1 megatons...

Why on earth is this worth it? We're not the academic world, we're a powerscaling site...

 

[Arceus0x]

the value doesn't come anywhere close to the old OBD guideline we grabbed.

 

[SeijiSetto]

If we were to round that to the nearest tenth (based on our Attack Potency page) or even the nearest hundredths (which most Calc Group members consider a bare minimum from what I've observed), the value doesn't come anywhere close to the old OBD guideline we grabbed.

yeah i'm w/ arceus on this one

it's a p minor change for the sake of accuracy so i'm fine with updating it but to say "IT'S NOWHERE CLOSE TO OUR CURRENT VALUE" when they are within 2% of each other is just...

 

[Arceus0x]

Tbf 87 kilotons is a notable difference but it is very small in the grand scheme of things.
Good chance that the guy who made the 6.3 megaton value just rounded it upwards so that those who upscale from the value he got would scale.

 

[Psychomaster35]

I'm also fine with updating the value, but to say it's a huge difference despite how it's just almost 100 kilotons lower is an overstatement.

So now we will have to double check if any Low 7-B characters scaling between 6.2 and 6.3 megatons are present so we can change their rating to 7-B.

 

[Flashlight237]

Destruction Chart - One Punch Man Forums: It's POWER. GETTO POWER.

The largest Naruto Forums and community based on the Naruto anime and manga series. Discuss all things Naruto, including the latest anime and manga releases!

web.archive.org

I'm also fine with updating the value, but to say it's a huge difference despite how it's just almost 100 kilotons lower is an overstatement.

So now we will have to double check if any Low 7-B characters scaling between 6.2 and 6.3 megatons are present so we can change their rating to 7-B.

Main reason I say it's a huge difference is how old the guideline is. I'm talking 12 years (which means there's room for updates). If you want big in a more literal sense, using our interpretation of the explosion formula (where we just cube the value instead of using the original's 0.33√ deal), we'd instead be getting 5.7 megatons (and also 5.7 kilotons for Town Level). which is higher than when things statistically become noticeable (9% vs 8%). I just used the original formula directly to AT LEAST give that site the benefit of the doubt.

In response to the rounding bit, using the same formula for Town Level's minimum radius (500 meters), I managed to get 5.795 kilotons, which rounds up to 5.8 kilotons. I think it's more of an issue with the clunkiness of the original calculator, which I feel is a decent guess since I got 5 km from a yield of 6.1 megatons: https://prnt.sc/EOPhhrNPvntW

 

[StrymULTRA]

That's how the academic world worked.

Why would we apply this to a powerscaling site which is mostly used from nerd teens lol?

 

[Flashlight237]

Why would we apply this to a powerscaling site which is mostly used from nerd teens lol?

I came from a site with stricter standards (Outskirts Battledome).

 

[StrymULTRA]

Ok but... you seem like super serious about a not even a 2% change that probably wouldn't affect this wiki at all.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Yeah that was my thing as well. We're not Outskirts Battledome. We're also certainly not an academic world. If the change made is incredibly small and the workload needed to actually account for it is higher, there's not really a point to doing so. We have lives, after all

 

[Flashlight237]

Ok but... you seem like super serious about a not even a 2% change that probably wouldn't affect this wiki at all.

Considering the wiki applied a 0.16% change a while back... Eh, I got a couple poker chips on it.

 

[Flashlight237]

We have lives, after all

And I get that, and I have a life of my own too, but at the same time, if at the bare minimum the DM I got from Ant on the act of being promoted to a Calc Grouper had three paragraphs hammering in the importance of accuracy (and he can be a real accuracy buff, trust me, I'm as bad as he is with it), then maybe we should, I dunno, reflect on that? And that's been my concern since being promoted last year: if Ant wants accuracy, then why argue against him?

 

[CloverDragon03]

Accuracy is key, yes, but this value being as close as it is to what we currently have means it is on the more accurate side. Not to mention, theoretically speaking, changing our baseline to 6.2 megatons rather than 6.3 would perhaps be less accurate - as the tier would be starting below this supposed 6.214 megaton baseline. Rounding up, not down, makes more sense in this context.

 

[Flashlight237]

Accuracy is key, yes, but this value being as close as it is to what we currently have means it is on the more accurate side. Not to mention, theoretically speaking, changing our baseline to 6.2 megatons rather than 6.3 would perhaps be less accurate - as the tier would be starting below this supposed 6.214 megaton baseline. Rounding up, not down, makes more sense in this context.

For one, the old Javascript calculator that the guideline's inventor used to come up with the guideline used the same formula I utilized here (which is also on the Explosion Yield Calculations page of this site), and I have pointed out how clunky the calculator can be since it gave 5 kilometers for a value of 6.1 megatons, as shown with a screenshot.

For two, I highly doubt a good chunk of the math-heads out there would math-ceiling things so much as round things up or down to the nearest decimal place of their choosing (our Attack Potency page goes as far as the tenths place, but the nearest thousandths is typically preferable). If you really don't want to play the rounding game (which... why?), there's also the whole ± thing scientists do as indicators of just how accurate estimates are. Using this logic and the value here (going to the nearest thousandths like you had), we're looking at an accuracy rating of this much:

Actual: 6.214
Current: 6.3±0.086
Revised: 6.2±0.014

The smaller that ± value is, the more accurate the estimate. Even if we were to just math-ceiling things (which is generally not a good idea if accuracy is key), we'd be going for 6.22 in the hundredths place and 6.215 at the thousandths place.

Also, when I ran through the formula through, this is how much of a difference these things are from the actual 5-km value.:

Current: 6300^0.33*0.28=5.022736704 km (22.7 meter difference)
Revised: 6200^0.33*0.28=4.996285981 km (3.7 meter difference)

That's almost an entire order of magnitude's worth of meters in difference. It's like the difference between hitting an 8 and a 9 in Olympic archery.

This is using the original formula from the website we linked in the Explosion Yields Calculations page rather than our version of the same formula (which instead puts City Level at 5.7 megatons).

 

[CloverDragon03]

Again, you’re bringing up “math-heads” and the like, as if we’re some kind of academy. We’re not. Powerscaling is a hobby, not a profession. So if we have a value that’s still very close to the “most accurate” one and the work required to make such a minor change is quite a lot with no major reward, it’s perfectly valid to say “no, this is not worth it.” Keep in mind that I don’t think a bot could be used for something like this, as we’d need to manually look at each Low 7-B+ and 7-B character, try and find what value they scale to, and determine whether or not to change their tier from that.

If the difference between the old baseline and the new one is large enough, this can be warranted, but this doesn’t warrant all that to me. Sorry, but at least for the moment, I oppose this change

 

[Flashlight237]

Again, you’re bringing up “math-heads” and the like, as if we’re some kind of academy. We’re not. Powerscaling is a hobby, not a profession. So if we have a value that’s still very close to the “most accurate” one and the work required to make such a minor change is quite a lot with no major reward, it’s perfectly valid to say “no, this is not worth it.” Keep in mind that I don’t think a bot could be used for something like this, as we’d need to manually look at each Low 7-B+ and 7-B character, try and find what value they scale to, and determine whether or not to change their tier from that.

If the difference between the old baseline and the new one is large enough, this can be warranted, but this doesn’t warrant all that to me. Sorry, but at least for the moment, I oppose this change

My man, I respect that you want to keep powerscaling as a hobby, but that's the thing... We're considered a laughingstock to practically everyone else, powerscalers included. The more accurate we are (which, by the way, it's my personal goal to make this wiki more accurate), the less likely others will think of this community as a whole as a joke. It would not do us any favors if any effort towards accuracy gets blocked for any personal reasons, the two of us included. I have to treat everything in the calculation field like an academy unless I draw the ire of Ant himself.

Also, you contradicted that second paragraph months ago when you rejected my Storm Calculations proposal even though not only was the whole 20-km thing depreciated after the site-wide horizon calculations revision, but also the 20-km value set would not even remotely work in any practical setting given those circumstances require the utmost perfection in sky clarity (which storms aren't; not even typical clear skies would fit since we can only see up to 5 km there). I'm not trying to be rude or anything; I'm still trying to work on those issues. I'm just trying to point out the flaws in the logic here.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Well for your second point, I don't remember every thread I evaluate so if I give some kind of double standard, either my opinion's changed over time or I made a mistake. I don't believe myself to be hypocritical

As for the whole "laughingstock" thing... Dude I genuinely don't care about what random Internet people say, nor do I think making a very minor change to a tier or two will do anything about that to begin with. My decisions aren't going to be based on outside perspectives, and that goes for a lot of our site-wide decisions as a whole.

 

[Arkenis]

We're considered a laughingstock to practically everyone else, powerscalers included. The more accurate we are (which, by the way, it's my personal goal to make this wiki more accurate), the less likely others will think of this community as a whole as a joke. It would not do us any favors if any effort towards accuracy gets blocked for any personal reasons, the two of us included. I have to treat everything in the calculation field like an academy unless I draw the ire of Ant himself.

Powerscaling is a laughingstock to regular anime watchers already. Trying not to be a laughingstock to other powerscalers isn't worth your time. This wiki gets joked on because we take it so seriously and do pixelscaling.

 

[Ezaru]

Considering the wiki applied a 0.16% change a while back... Eh, I got a couple poker chips on it.

I think there is a bit of a difference between changing how you calculate joule values for pulv. which would inflate every calc using that by 0.1% and a 1% difference in where a tier cutoff, which is already arbitrary, is placed. Like, 5km is already pretty arbitrary to begin with.

But if the number is literally just wrong, I dont see any reason not to change it, as long as someone is willing to go through the profiles and stuff.