Boros's Ship Rating Justification

[Golden_Void]

My issue with ship scaling is that it was damaged way more at levels far beneath the power Saitama generated from jumping off the moon, which is then used to scale under these feats.

If anything, it should have been easier for Saitama to jump onto the ship to penetrate the material, as he was working with gravity. Saitama and Armor-Released Boros were able to break through the ship and heavily fragment the pieces while opposing gravity. Saitama's jump only made a deep crater. He caused visibly less damage to the ship than any of the previous attacks, but he did knock the ship out of its floating mode. A calculation could be done to determine the potential energy of the ship and get a result from that. It did fall from that height, but the damage looked unimpressive so..

The second issue is using the jump to justify the ship's durability. Making the entire ship's durability equal to the jump is weird for four reasons:

1. It assumes that 0 energy was lost between the moon and the ship. The crater was made via kinetic energy, and KE is rapidly lost over distance with a reduction of speed. The only way this is possible is if Saitama teleported.
The damage (or lack thereof) he causes to the ship shows the massive amount of energy lost, given the surface area on the moon he destroyed is roughly as large as India. His casual combat with Boros that destroyed the ship < the punch that destroyed the meteor which would've destroyed city z and surrounding areas ≤ the moon jump < serious punch.

2. It assumes the entire ship is equally durable across the entire surface area even though we've seen casual combat between the two break holes into the ship, as well as Tatsumaki causing damage with their own bombardment being thrown at them. Since the jump damage is being scaled below every other feat, we are also saying Saitama is casually throwing 6-A punches left and right, when he had to charge up to jump off the moon. That isn't the case.

3. The ship's power core didn't break until CSRC and serious punch was used.

4. Most importantly, a giant, smoking crater in the ship or walls getting easily blasted apart does not fit our criteria for durability at all. It means the exact opposite - the material failed to withstand the KE of the jump and the potential energy of the ship was overcome. Meaning, the durability of the ship is lower than these feats. Durability is especially easy to define in solid mechanics.

In mechanics, compressive strength (or compression strength) is the capacity of a material or structure to withstand loads tending to reduce size (as opposed to tensile strength which withstands loads tending to elongate). In other words, compressive strength resists compression (being pushed together), whereas tensile strength resists tension (being pulled apart).

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Well, judging the durability of large sized inanimate objects in general is kind of inconsistent given we got to differentiate attacks with larger area of effects relative to lower pressure and what not. Though the same thing applies to attacking a lot of large sized characters in general.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Gonna start by saying that the premise of the ship not withstanding the landing is pretty bad since the ground under saitama was literally still intact, which automatically scales it below Boros literally kicking a hole that goes through it. It’s pretty obvious that every meteoric burst attack he throws did much more damage than the moon landing did
Additionally, I am skeptical as to the idea that air friction against saitama moving at relativistic speed and high 6-A force would have even changed the KE enough to even warrant removing the rating to begin with
that
Also saitama “charging up” the jump is literally just him getting into a position to jump. I mean you literally can’t jump if your legs are stiff, so that part just makes no sense.

3. The ship's power core didn't break until CSRC and serious punch was used.

Not sure what the relevance of this is

 

[ZillertheBucko]

This scan shows that the part of the ship immediately under saitama stayed intact by the way, so your own scan kinda just disproves your entire attempt at saying it can’t scale because saitama made a hole through it or something

 

[ByAsura]

Hard disagree.

My issue with ship scaling is that it was damaged way more at levels far beneath the power Saitama generated from jumping off the moon, which is then used to scale under these feats.

Who says it's far beneath? Saitama jumped from the moon, he didn't launch any kind of punch like when he was actually fighting Boros before and after the moon jump. So this doesn't really matter, and is exactly why we're even scaling them in the first place.

Also, considering that Boros' ship is kilometres across, and the crater size varies from panel to panel, I'd just chalk the damages up to inconsistency in appearance. But Boros would scale anyway (as I'll explain below).

1. It assumes that 0 energy was lost between the moon and the ship. The crater was made via kinetic energy, and KE is rapidly lost over distance with a reduction of speed. The only way this is possible is if Saitama teleported.
The damage (or lack thereof) he causes to the ship shows the massive amount of energy lost, given the surface area on the moon he destroyed is roughly as large as India. His casual combat with Boros that destroyed the ship < the punch that destroyed the meteor which would've destroyed city z and surrounding areas ≤ the moon jump < serious punch.

It would be basically next to 0. Not literally 0, but Saitama is moving at a considerable fraction of the speed of light, so atmospheric travel would take milliseconds through tonnes of atmosphere. I don't see how that'd reduce the energy of the jump by tiers, unless you have some kind of proof.

3. The ship's power core didn't break until CSRC and serious punch was used.

How is this remotely relevant? Serious Punch is >> Boros and Saitama's level of power here.

2. It assumes the entire ship is equally durable across the entire surface area even though we've seen casual combat between the two break holes into the ship, as well as Tatsumaki causing damage with their own bombardment being thrown at them. Since the jump damage is being scaled below every other feat, we are also saying Saitama is casually throwing 6-A punches left and right, when he had to charge up to jump off the moon. That isn't the case.
4. Most importantly, a giant, smoking crater in the ship or walls getting easily blasted apart does not fit our criteria for durability at all. It means the exact opposite - the material failed to withstand the KE of the jump and the potential energy of the ship was overcome. Meaning, the durability of the ship is lower than these feats. Durability is especially easy to define in solid mechanics.

Firstly, Tatsumaki scales well above the overall durability of the ship via feats and what we see here. The fact that she could damage parts of it isn't an anti feat.

Secondly, Saitama didn't have to 'charge up'. He was already in a squatting position, then considered if it'd even work, and jumped. It's telling that far stronger moves than this, like the Consecutive Punches against Boros and Garou, don't need some kind of charge up or even any form of effort.

Lastly, even if the overall durability of the ship didn't scale and certain sections of armour did, Boros could deal far more damage to the ship overall than what the moon jump did. So Boros would still scale, possibly barring his Unsealed form's punches.

 

[Kachon123]

Yeah, I disagree FRA.

 

[Marvel_Champion_07]

Disagree FRA

 

[Golden_Void]

Who says it's far beneath? Saitama jumped from the moon, he didn't launch any kind of punch like when he was actually fighting Boros before and after the moon jump. So this doesn't really matter, and is exactly why we're even scaling them in the first place.

The amount of force a punch can generate pales in comparison to the amount of force both legs generate, that's standard biomechanics.

Also, considering that Boros' ship is kilometres across, and the crater size varies from panel to panel, I'd just chalk the damages up to inconsistency in appearance. But Boros would scale anyway (as I'll explain below).

Chalking up the damages as inconsistent would be ignoring almost every panel Boros and Saitama fight in. I'm talking about the ship, not Boros.

It would be basically next to 0. Not literally 0, but Saitama is moving at a considerable fraction of the speed of light, so atmospheric travel would take milliseconds through tonnes of atmosphere. I don't see how that'd reduce the energy of the jump by tiers, unless you have some kind of proof.

Ok so Saitama jumping from the moon creating a multi-country-sized shockwave when literally none of his attacks against Boros had even a remotely similar effect means he should've shot through the ship like a bullet. If it scales below his normal attacks then that also means the effects of them would've had ridiculous aoe (as they usually do), but they didn't. Boros's normal attacks were obviously weaker than the one kick that sent Saitama to the moon, nobody scales the kick below his regular techniques.

How is this remotely relevant? Serious Punch is >> Boros and Saitama's level of power here.

Saitama's punch being above himself makes no sense, but the power core keeps the ship levitating. It didn't break until that move was released, and I am aware that Saitama already tilted it prior.

Firstly, Tatsumaki scales well above the overall durability of the ship via feats and what we see here. The fact that she could damage parts of it isn't an anti feat.

She did damage it, as stated in the databook, which proves my point that the ship is not nearly as durable as it is rated.

Secondly, Saitama didn't have to 'charge up'. He was already in a squatting position, then considered if it'd even work, and jumped. It's telling that far stronger moves than this, like the Consecutive Punches against Boros and Garou, don't need some kind of charge up or even any form of effort.

He was in a lunge position which activates and prepares his leg muscles. Next, he definitely does wind up for his serious punch and finishes with perfect boxing technique which adds more power to his punch. Considering his serious punch is the only calculated attack that is proven to be stronger than his jump (a 265x difference using accepted calculations), which he also did put effort into, then his normal punches definitely do not compare, and you would need evidence or calculations proving otherwise.

Lastly, even if the overall durability of the ship didn't scale and certain sections of armour did, Boros could deal far more damage to the ship overall than what the moon jump did. So Boros would still scale, possibly barring his Unsealed form's punches.

Again, I'm talking about the ship's durability and this further proves my point. The fact that Boros can vaporize the metal, they can literally bust through it, the fact that Tatsumaki can damage it by throwing rocks really fast, and the fact that Saitama craters the ship jumping from the moon is all evidence that the ship's durability scales under every last feat mentioned. You wouldn't claim a car is bulletproof when it gets penetrated by bullets, because then its durability isn't what was claimed.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

“Other attacks didn’t cause high 6-A shockwaves though” has never been a valid argument for anything here I should probably add

 

[Qawsedf234]

If it scales below his normal attacks then that also means the effects of them would've had ridiculous aoe (as they usually do)

While I get where you're coming from here, the site already ignores inconsistent AoE for scaling.

A in-universe example is Cosmic Garou vs Saitama. Their first clash of the Serious Punches caused this massive insane explosion and... literally nothing else they did even when explicitly going all out produces energy even a remote fraction of the original attack. Does that mean that they were throwing weaker punches from that point on? No, it just means the artist is inconsistent with how he does AoE.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Well, judging the durability of large sized inanimate objects in general is kind of inconsistent given we got to differentiate attacks with larger area of effects relative to lower pressure and what not. Though the same thing applies to attacking a lot of large sized characters in general.

While I am neutral for now, I still feel like this post above is important to consider. Durability in general isn't linear and especially if we are talking about large sized objects. Sometimes, large Island level attacks do more damage than Multi-Continent level attacks via having more penetration/pressure.

 

[ByAsura]

The amount of force a punch can generate pales in comparison to the amount of force both legs generate, that's standard biomechanics.

Yes, but we're talking about Saitama, who puts practically no effort into his punches during combat while supposedly serious, let alone the amount of force he jumps with (even with your charge up logic in mind).

Chalking up the damages as inconsistent would be ignoring almost every panel Boros and Saitama fight in.

No it wouldn't. It'd mean ignoring a few because they go to a different part of the ship almost directly after.

If you mean in general, then I ask what consistency? Boros impales the ship with its own mast, and yet we never see those damages again even in the same spot. There's little consistency to be had here.

I'm talking about the ship, not Boros.

Cool. Downgrading the ship is fine, I just say Boros is above the moon feat, and that said feat is High 6-A (something you're contesting).

Ok so Saitama jumping from the moon creating a multi-country-sized shockwave when literally none of his attacks against Boros had even a remotely similar effect

So would the calculated amount of energy needed to displace the ship at that velocity, as well as the ground impact (at the very least, it'd be above this). Fiction isn't consistent.

means he should've shot through the ship like a bullet.

That still relies on the assertion that the ship couldn't have survived the full impact. So far the only evidence you have for that is Tatsumaki and Boros and Saitama (the one who performed the feat) themselves, so it's not very convincing.

If it scales below his normal attacks then that also means the effects of them would've had ridiculous aoe (as they usually do), but they didn't.

Even dozens of consecutive normal punches from Saitama didn't have the same effect as the moon jump, despite the fact that Saitama

Boros's normal attacks were obviously weaker than the one kick that sent Saitama to the moon, nobody scales the kick below his regular techniques.

Again, according to who? Nobody said this shit.

Saitama's punch being above himself makes no sense,

Yes it does, especially for Saitama of all people. He outright goes from maiming Boros to ripping a much more powerful form to pieces.

but the power core keeps the ship levitating. It didn't break until that move was released, and I am aware that Saitama already tilted it prior.

You're still not explaining why this even matters to the point at large. How does this remotely contradict the ship scaling?

She did damage it, as stated in the databook, which proves my point that the ship is not nearly as durable as it is rated.

I'm not arguing that she didn't damage the ship, I'm arguing that someone 600 times stronger than the moon jump damaging the ship isn't an anti feat.

This is like saying that Kratos is 9-B because he can be harmed by Ares and just expecting everyone to agree when we have no reason to believe Ares is 9-B.

He was in a lunge position which activates and prepares his leg muscles.

So does winding your arm back a bit for a punch, like Saitama almost always does even while sparring. This is no different.

Next, he definitely does wind up for his serious punch and finishes with perfect boxing technique which adds more power to his punch.

Which is far above this scale and completely unrelated.

Considering his serious punch is the only calculated attack that is proven to be stronger than his jump (a 265x difference using accepted calculations), which he also did put effort into, then his normal punches definitely do not compare, and you would need evidence or calculations proving otherwise.

By this logic, the Consecutive Normal Punches he launched against Garou aren't either. You're asking me to disprove something that's undisprovable, but it certainly doesn't make your point valid at all.

Again, I'm talking about the ship's durability and this further proves my point.

Sure. Like I said, this is fine.

The fact that Boros can vaporize the metal,

Boros hasn't got any anti-feats.

they can literally bust through it, the fact that Tatsumaki can damage it by throwing rocks really fast,

Tatsumaki can throw rocks with impossible force. I don't remotely see why throwing rocks is a relevant argument here, especially when both the sections of the ship and the rocks are mutually destroyed. If I accelerated a doll to half the speed of light and obliterated you, why would that suddenly mean you're less durable than the doll?

 

[ZillertheBucko]

While I am neutral for now, I still feel like this post above is important to consider. Durability in general isn't linear and especially if we are talking about large sized objects. Sometimes, large Island level attacks do more damage than Multi-Continent level attacks via having more penetration/pressure.

Well it did withstand the high 6-A impact over the surface area of saitama’s feet, so I think it’s most valid to scale it directly

 

[Golden_Void]

Well it did withstand the high 6-A impact over the surface area of saitama’s feet, so I think it’s most valid to scale it directly

If you can put a crater in an object, it literally did not withstand the force applied to it.

I'm not even looking at the walls of text earlier because this thread is about the ship, not any characters.

 

[Golden_Void]

While I get where you're coming from here, the site already ignores inconsistent AoE for scaling.

A in-universe example is Cosmic Garou vs Saitama. Their first clash of the Serious Punches caused this massive insane explosion and... literally nothing else they did even when explicitly going all out produces energy even a remote fraction of the original attack. Does that mean that they were throwing weaker punches from that point on? No, it just means the artist is inconsistent with how he does AoE.

This honestly brings up a valid point for why the current scaling could be beyond 4-A since their increase in power was demonstrably exponential, but that's another thread.

 

[ByAsura]

I'm not even looking at the walls of text earlier because this thread is about the ship, not any characters.

If you actually read it, you'd see that I'm addressing your claim that the ship impact isn't High 6-A either, and that I understood what you're trying to get at.

My suggestion is simply to keep Boros as High 6-A via scaling above the moon crater because he did far more damage, but remove it from the ship itself.

 

[Golden_Void]

If you actually read it, you'd see that I'm addressing your claim that the ship impact isn't High 6-A either, and that I understood what you're trying to get at.

My suggestion is simply to keep Boros as High 6-A via scaling above the moon crater because he did far more damage, but remove it from the ship itself.

I'm fine with Boros this was never about him, though I see how you could think certain arguments were. I'm just tired I literally work every day lol.

My thing with the whole "it assumes they lose no energy" was due to the fact that the shockwave on the moon covered a large country-sized area and assuming the energy loss is minimal, it also means that the strength of ship's levitation was weaker than the jump itself as well.

 

[ByAsura]

I've addressed that previously.

Anyway, if everyone is in agreement with my suggestion, I can apply the changes.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

If you can put a crater in an object, it literally did not withstand the force applied to it.

I literally pointed out that your scan that showed that the ground directly under saitama didn't even break

 

[ZillertheBucko]

I'm not even looking at the walls of text earlier because this thread is about the ship, not any characters.

also "I'm not even gonna read your argument"

 

[ZillertheBucko]

I’d suggest we don’t change the durability of the ship just because of this
At most we can just say the ship downscales from the moon jump, but the fact remains that it DID literally not get a hole broken through it when saitama landed on it, it just got bent

 

[Golden_Void]

I’d suggest we don’t change the durability of the ship just because of this
At most we can just say the ship downscales from the moon jump, but the fact remains that it DID literally not get a hole broken through it when saitama landed on it, it just got bent

You seem to believe that only holes invalidate material durability, when there are far more disqualifiers.

I've addressed that previously.

Anyway, if everyone is in agreement with my suggestion, I can apply the changes.

What was it again?

 

[ByAsura]

Removing High 6-A for the ship's durability, but keeping it for Boros' AP with stronger attacks.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

You seem to believe that only holes invalidate material durability, when there are far more disqualifiers.

Such as?

 

[ZillertheBucko]

and no it didn’t melt or anything either
the ridiculous level of denial it takes to see saitama landing on the surface with high 6-A force, the material NOT BEING PENETRATED, and concluding “no clearly it’s 6-C at best” is insane
the ship scales, because it is shown to take high 6-A attacks without breaking. At worst it downscales to at most high 6-A

 

[Therefir]

Just put the ship's durability at "At most High 6-A" and note in the explanation that it took considerable damage from the attack.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Precisely

 

[Golden_Void]

Such as?

It's in the OP.

In mechanics, compressive strength (or compression strength) is the capacity of a material or structure to withstand loads tending to reduce size (as opposed to tensile strength which withstands loads tending to elongate). In other words, compressive strength resists compression (being pushed together), whereas tensile strength resists tension (being pulled apart).

Folding, warping, bending, cratering, stretching apart, etc. are all disqualifiers for material durability. The fact that he left a smoking crater as deep as a person with stress fractures in the material and fragments of the ship getting blown away when he landed makes this clear that it is not as durable as his jump force.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

It's in the OP.

In mechanics, compressive strength (or compression strength) is the capacity of a material or structure to withstand loads tending to reduce size (as opposed to tensile strength which withstands loads tending to elongate). In other words, compressive strength resists compression (being pushed together), whereas tensile strength resists tension (being pulled apart).

Folding, warping, bending, cratering, stretching apart, etc. are all disqualifiers for material durability. The fact that he left a smoking crater as deep as a person with stress fractures in the material and fragments of the ship getting blown away when he landed makes this clear that it is not as durable as his jump force.

Which makes it downscale to be at most high 6-A, rather than taking the insane option of saying it’s like 1,000 times weaker
also the durability page doesn’t say anything about “if a material bends then it can’t scale at all” so…yeah, kinda pulling this out of thin air if you plan to completely erase the scaling like this.

 

[Golden_Void]

Which makes it downscale to be at most high 6-A, rather than taking the insane option of saying it’s like 1,000 times weaker
also the durability page doesn’t say anything about “if a material bends then it can’t scale at all” so…yeah, kinda pulling this out of thin air if you plan to completely erase the scaling like this.

"Durability is the property which guarantees the ability to withstand a certain amount of force"
with·stand
/wiTHˈstand,wiT͟Hˈstand/

verb

1. remain undamaged or unaffected by; resist.
2. to be strong enough, or not be changed by something, or to oppose a person or thing successfully:
3. to be strong enough not to be harmed or destroyed by something

Idk why you're making this difficult. Our durability page is derived from physics, the same physics I literally just quoted to you that state a material's compressive and tensile strength being overcome is the scientific definition of having its durability overcome. There isn't a single High 6-A character that wasn't able to significantly damage the ship, therefore there are no feats that support the ship's durability being that same tier. I don't know what to tell you past this.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Idk why you're making this difficult. Our durability page is derived from physics, the same physics I literally just quoted to you that state a material's compressive and tensile strength being overcome is the scientific definition of having its durability overcome. There isn't a single High 6-A character that wasn't able to significantly damage the ship, therefore there are no feats that support the ship's durability being that same tier. I don't know what to tell you past this.

ship takes high 6-A attack directly, and doesn't break
clearly, this ship would be obliterated by high 6-A attacks
clearly, tatsumaki being able to damage the ship that scales like a hundred times below her is a massive anti feat....

 

[Golden_Void]

ship takes high 6-A attack directly, and doesn't break
clearly, this ship would be obliterated by high 6-A attacks
clearly, tatsumaki being able to damage the ship that scales like a hundred times below her is a massive anti feat....

AoE fallacy.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

AoE fallacy.

saying the name of a fallacy that you made up and not elaborating on what it means is a good idea I guess

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Just put the ship's durability at "At most High 6-A" and note in the explanation that it took considerable damage from the attack.

Asura, thoughts on this?

 

[ByAsura]

Neutral on the rating, but you don't have to be unaffected by something to scale to it on the wiki.

 

[Golden_Void]

saying the name of a fallacy that you made up and not elaborating on what it means is a good idea I guess

If there were scans of the ship actually withstanding any high 6-A attack you would've provided them by now. Instead, you're moving the goalposts and stating that the entire ship has to be destroyed ("ship takes high 6-A attack directly, and doesn't break"), when every attack from a character on that tier has worked.

 

[Golden_Void]

Neutral on the rating, but you don't have to be unaffected by something to scale to it on the wiki.

Yeah, but the ship isn't a being that can take a bruise, which we would consider durability in the case of a person. If a material breaks it is objectively not that durable.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

If there were scans of the ship actually withstanding any high 6-A attack you would've provided them by now. Instead, you're moving the goalposts and stating that the entire ship has to be destroyed ("ship takes high 6-A attack directly, and doesn't break"), when every attack from a character on that tier has worked.

I provided them for you...twice
using your own scan no less, but I'll do it again I guess

literally still solid enough for him to continue standing on it
this is ridiculous if you think it doesn't downscale.

 

[Golden_Void]

I provided them for you...twice
using your own scan no less, but I'll do it again I guess

literally still solid enough for him to continue standing on it
this is ridiculous if you think it doesn't downscale.

Me repeating myself for the fifth time:

You provide a scan of heavy structural damage with literal pieces being blasted in every direction and call it durability.

Argue with someone else.

Also weren't you just arguing that the moon jump feat scales under the other feats of the ship getting blasted apart since it is objectively a worse feat?

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Me repeating myself for the fifth time:

You provide a scan of heavy structural damage with literal pieces being blasted in every direction and call it durability.

and it partially withstood it, at least enough for it to shield the insides from saitama blasting through it
which means it downscales from high 6-A durability, case closed.

Argue with someone else.

you made the crt buddy

Also weren't you just arguing that the moon jump feat scales under the other feats of the ship getting blasted apart since it is objectively a worse feat?

yeah, that's exactly what I said
I am baffled as to why you are bringing this up as if this somehow is a negative thing for my claim? That's like the entire point of the scaling. Moon jump wasn't enough to break it, but attacks stronger than it are. What are you even trying to argue????????