• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
13,914
5,990
Now I know what everyone's thinking "another downgrade!!?" Yeah one that's been needed for close to a year, so lets get into it.
(domain expansion is DE and curse energy is ce)

- High Tier Ap -
Right now on the pages we have characters like Yuta, Uro, and Yuki, Ryu all being rated as "Likely High 7-A" and the justification is this:

"Characters who qualify at "Likely High 7-A" are considered to wield nigh-infinite cursed energy and are able to control the cursed energy in their entire body simultaneously, making them far above the Domain Expansion of normal characters."

This is wrong and never backed up in the manga at all. This also doesn't make sense when we take into account the immense consumption of ce to power a de, making it a one time use a day for every sorcerer barring Sukuna, Hakari and Gojo. So characters regular attacks such as punches, kicks or cursed techniques don't output equal power to a de.


"But Arkenis if they don't scale to de then where do they scale UWU"

I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE THEY SCALE LMAOOOO

Yuta:
Ryu:
Uro:
Yuki:
Kenjaku:
Hakari in Jackpot:
Kashimo:
Yorozu:

- Mid Tiers Ap -

Most of the mid tiers are generally fine for their ratings but there's a few who need to be downgraded and reworked.

Nanami is rated as H7C, downgrade him to:

Multi-City Block level, higher in Overtime

Megumi is rated as 8-C, should be:

(At least within CG he should be) Multi-City Block level, higher in Domain

Todo is rated as H7C, downgrade him to:

Multi-City Block level | Same in Shibuya

Choso is rated as H7C, downgrade him to:

Multi-City Block level, far higher in FRS

Jiro is rated as H7C, downgrade him to:

Multi-City Block level

Uraume is rated H7C, downgrade him to:

Multi-City Block level+, Small Town level with Max output

Jogo is rated H7C, downgrade him to:

Multi-City Block level, far higher in Domain, Small City level with Max Meteor

Hanami is rated H7C, downgrade him to:

Multi-City Block level, far higher in Domain
 
Last edited:
Forgot this was in versus match
GnvhlIG.png
 
What is your personal Domain Expansion hand sign?

naruto-hand-signs.png
Encoded_hand_seals-senjingan.jpg


Anyways, I agree with the downgrade, but disagree with both the calcs used for the scaling.

For the first calc, the anime doesn't actually show us the tree moving or rising from the ground, so we can't calculate its speed using the frames. The anime shows us a blurry still image that gets unblurred, so the tree's movement was done off-screen and could've taken a lot more time than what the calc assumes (for example, one second, or half a second).
Furthermore, it implies that Hanami is capable of casual spamming of supersonic attacks since it is stated that he sacrifices power and speed in exchange of making larger creations. The speed downgrade CRT is coming to an overall agreement that supersonic speed is rare.


As for the second calc, it uses this panel to scale the size of the crater:

0134-018.png


However, we get a clearer prespective, and it shows that the crater is actually much smaller than what is calculated (The calc makes the crater ellipsoidic with a width of 10 meters and depth of 17 meters. Notice that the ground is not that thick and above hollowed-out space):
0134-020.png


Also Uzumaki is a Maximum technique, so it doesn't scale to regular punches and kicks.



Time to find something else to scale with.
 
Last edited:
However, we get a clearer prespective, and it shows that the crater is actually much smaller than what is calculated (The calc makes the crater an ellipsoid with a width of 10 meters and depth of 17 meters. Notice that the ground is not that thick and above hollowed-out space):
That second painel doesn't even show the full crater
 
As for the second calc, it uses this panel to scale the size of the crater:

0134-018.png


However, we get a clearer prespective, and it shows that the crater is actually much smaller than what is calculated (The calc makes the crater ellipsoidic with a width of 10 meters and depth of 17 meters. Notice that the ground is not that thick and above hollowed-out space):
0134-020.png


Also Uzumaki is a Maximum technique, so it doesn't scale to regular punches and kicks.



Time to find something else to scale with.
From a glance, it doesn't look like there's actually a hollow space beneath. That just seems to be where the light doesn't reach into the crater. You can see cracks on the side of the crater reaching into the darkness before it gets too dark to see cracks. Meaning the depth expands past the darkness. But it def wouldn't hurt to calc the feat using a different angle. I just don't think it's a cylindrical a couple meters thick over hollow ground.
 
From a glance, it doesn't look like there's actually a hollow space beneath. That just seems to be where the light doesn't reach into the crater. You can see cracks on the side of the crater reaching into the darkness before it gets too dark to see cracks. Meaning the depth expands past the darkness. But it def wouldn't hurt to calc the feat using a different angle. I just don't think it's a cylindrical a couple meters thick over hollow ground.
I can accept that.

With the width adjusted, I think it would be on the lower end of 8-A.
 
From a glance, it doesn't look like there's actually a hollow space beneath. That just seems to be where the light doesn't reach into the crater. You can see cracks on the side of the crater reaching into the darkness before it gets too dark to see cracks. Meaning the depth expands past the darkness. But it def wouldn't hurt to calc the feat using a different angle. I just don't think it's a cylindrical a couple meters thick over hollow ground.
Actually, yeah I agree with this
 
Just so we're on the same foot before I make the calc, we agree that the shape is cylindrical and that the length and width would be the same. And that the width only looks skinnier because of the angle the shot is at, right? Don't wanna make a calc only for everyone to disagree with that.
Yeah I agree with this
 
Just so we're on the same foot before I make the calc, we agree that the shape is cylindrical and that the length and width would be the same. And that the width only looks skinnier because of the angle the shot is at, right? Don't wanna make a calc only for everyone to disagree with that.
Yeah
 
I looked into the next chapter, its width might actually be less than its length. But more importantly, I found 3 shots of the crater. I want everyone to give their opinion on which pic would be best for getting the depth of the crater. I think 1 or 3 personally.

18.jpg
20.jpg
7.jpg
 
I looked into the next chapter, its width might actually be less than its length. But more importantly, I found 3 shots of the crater. I want everyone to give their opinion on which pic would be best for getting the depth of the crater. I think 1 or 3 personally.

18.jpg
20.jpg
7.jpg
3rd one
 
Just so we're on the same foot before I make the calc, we agree that the shape is cylindrical and that the length and width would be the same. And that the width only looks skinnier because of the angle the shot is at, right? Don't wanna make a calc only for everyone to disagree with that.
1200px-Elliptic_cylinder_abh.svg.png


a and h are the same.
b is smaller.

I looked into the next chapter, its width might actually be less than its length. But more importantly, I found 3 shots of the crater. I want everyone to give their opinion on which pic would be best for getting the depth of the crater. I think 1 or 3 personally.

18.jpg
20.jpg
7.jpg
Imo, getting the depth from 1 is best. Basically the same angsize methodology from Life.
 
I looked into the next chapter, its width might actually be less than its length. But more importantly, I found 3 shots of the crater. I want everyone to give their opinion on which pic would be best for getting the depth of the crater. I think 1 or 3 personally.

18.jpg
20.jpg
7.jpg
Probably the third
 
I looked into the next chapter, its width might actually be less than its length. But more importantly, I found 3 shots of the crater. I want everyone to give their opinion on which pic would be best for getting the depth of the crater. I think 1 or 3 personally.

18.jpg
20.jpg
7.jpg
I think the first one should be used to measure depth and the second can be for width. The third just doesn't show enough and we can tell the crater grows in width in other panels so it cant be used
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top