Naruto Calculation Discussion: Biju Dama Requiem

[M3X_2.0]

Hello. We currently use both of the calculations below, but they are wrong. I asked DontTalk if using a mountain is more reliable than using other methods, even if they use more pixelscaling steps. DontTalk said "Generally I would prefer other methods being used when in any way possible.". This already makes the two calculations we use, as wrong.

Combined Biju Bomb and Individual Biju Bombs

vsbattles.fandom.com

Now, the other methods we should use. The first one, is using Gyuki's height to calc the crater. Gyuiki's height was calculated here, to be 123m with the tails, and the calculation is accepted. The other method, and the one I'm in favor of using, is the country method. We already use the map for some calculations, and we already know the size of the country, here is the calc

 

[Damage3245]

We currently use both of the calculations below, but they are wrong. I asked DontTalk if using a mountain is more reliable than using other methods, even if they use more pixelscaling steps. DontTalk said "Generally I would prefer other methods being used when in any way possible.". This already makes the two calculations we use, as wrong.

I'd like to question how that makes them "wrong" exactly. I agree that reliability is important but being more reliable is different than just denouncing those calculations as being "wrong". And adding more steps isn't necessarily going to make it more reliable.

Regarding the 8-Tails, I thought there were disagreements over that considering the inconsistent height with which the Biju are drawn in Naruto?

That is the main reason why we switched over to scaling the explosion to a mountain.

Can you explain why exactly it is wrong other than "The explosion is being scaled to a mountain"? It is a fairly typical thing that we do.

Doing multiple scaling steps such scaling from the planet itself, to the country to the craters seems a lot less reliable to me than just scaling from a mountain to the craters.

Can you prove that these alternate method are more reliable? Because I would not take DontTalkDT's statement to mean "Literally anything else is better."

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Honestly I don’t see why using a mountain is wrong and better than using the Bijuu’s height?

 

[M3X_2.0]

I'd like to question how that makes them "wrong" exactly. I agree that reliability is important but being more reliable is different than just denouncing those calculations as being "wrong". And adding more steps isn't necessarily going to make it more reliable.

DontTalk's words by itself already makes a calc with different methods better than your calc, this alone is enough to replace your calculation. But if want a reason, this is no different from using a cloud to measure something, since they are inconsistent with the scene. Mountains are too inconsistenct with the scene, it's not because you see a mountain range in the shot, that you should use a mountain that you don't know the size. The scene has a lot of different mountains, using the "closest" one and consider it to be 609m while there are a lot of smaller mountains near it, is wrong. And the mountain isn't even closer, if we go by our page, the explosion is 1090m away from the center of the mountain, where the height is being calculated.

I haven't tackle the inconsistency point yet, but here I come. In the same comment - not the one I quoted - you said that 8 Tails is inconsistent, and why do you don't say the same for the mountains? Do you think they are perfectly consistent? The scene has a lot of mountains, and even looking from a different shot, you can see even more mountains. What makes you belive, Damage, that the mountain you used has only 609m? Why not more than that? It's funny how you talk about Biju inconsistent and treats the mountains as consistent.

One more reason for the calculation to be wrong, it goes against the already established country size. You can't simply make a crater to be only 20km while it's relative to a country, that can be seen from a planet shot and maps. The Konoha to Suna distance takes preference over an assumption that is disregarded by DontTalk. Your method coonsist by using a mountain and assuming the smalles possible value for a mountain to be a mountain, a method that DontTalk said that he doesn't like and prefer different methods if possible. I suggested two methods, yours need to go.

Regarding the 8-Tails, I thought there were disagreements over that considering the inconsistent height with which the Biju are drawn in Naruto?

No, the Biju are not inconsistent. That's something you use to disregard their sizes. Of course, if you take every scene draw by Kishimoto and try to point out every "inconsistency" between them, you'll reach the conclusion that they are all inconsistent with each other, but that's a ridiculous thing to do. Kishimoto is a human, he can't make Gyuki and Bee to be perfectly relative in size, but for example, Bee is relative to Gyuki's eye or head, and this is consistent. Drawing something is different from a 3D model from a game, where the model has only one size and it'll be the same size, doesn't matter the scene, or a movie with real humans. It is not fair to tax small human errors as inconsistency, it is even cowardly. Taking every scan where Gyuki is in and calc its size is not correct.

Can you prove that these alternate method are more reliable? Because I would not take DontTalkDT's statement to mean "Literally anything else is better."

Don't be dishonest, Damage. You yourself used his word as a fact when you desperately tried to remove the calculation from Shinju's roots, and there are several other cases where you took his word as a fact. Why is it different now? Only accept when it suits you? DontTalk said mountains are not reliable to use, and he prefers different methods, so that's your answer for the last question.

 

[Damage3245]

DontTalk's words by itself already makes a calc with different methods better than your calc, this alone is enough to replace your calculation.

DontTalk isn't saying "Literally any other calc is better." You have to show that another calc is more reliable.

But if want a reason, this is no different from using a cloud to measure something, since they are inconsistent with the scene. Mountains are too inconsistenct with the scene, it's not because you see a mountain range in the shot, that you should use a mountain that you don't know the size. The scene has a lot of different mountains, using the "closest" one and consider it to be 609m while there are a lot of smaller mountains near it, is wrong. And the mountain isn't even closer, if we go by our page, the explosion is 1090m away from the center of the mountain, where the height is being calculated.

609 meters is the standard assumption for mountain size. And as for it being "1090 m" away, I made do with the nearest mountain. Obviously any other one further away would be even worse.

There are two Biju Bomb calcs in that blog post, please be specific as to your issues with each one.

I haven't tackle the inconsistency point yet, but here I come. In the same comment - not the one I quoted - you said that 8 Tails is inconsistent, and why do you don't say the same for the mountains? Do you think they are perfectly consistent? The scene has a lot of mountains, and even looking from a different shot, you can see even more mountains. What makes you belive, Damage, that the mountain you used has only 609m? Why not more than that? It's funny how you talk about Biju inconsistent and treats the mountains as consistent.

As I said, the 609 meters is a standard assumption. There are a lot of other mountains but those appear to be larger, in different areas, and wouldn't do any good for the calculation.

One more reason for the calculation to be wrong, it goes against the already established country size. You can't simply make a crater to be only 20km while it's relative to a country, that can be seen from a planet shot and maps. Your method coonsist by using a mountain and assuming the smalles possible value for a mountain to be a mountain, a method that DontTalk said that he doesn't like and prefer different methods if possible. I suggested two methods, yours need to go.

Maybe the country size is wrong. Maybe being safer in our assumptions is just better. This is like me saying "You can't simply make a crater to be hundreds of kilometers across when we can clearly see the Juubi standing inside of it."

No, the Biju are not inconsistent. That's something you use to disregard their sizes. Of course, if you take every scene draw by Kishimoto and try to point out every "inconsistency" between them, you'll reach the conclusion that they are all inconsistent with each other, but that's a ridiculous thing to do. Kishimoto is a human, he can't make Gyuki and Bee to be perfectly relative in size, but for example, Bee is relative to Gyuki's eye or head, and this is consistent. Drawing something is different from a 3D model from a game, where the model has only one size and it'll be the same size, doesn't matter the scene, or a movie with real humans. It is not fair to tax small human errors as inconsistency, it is even cowardly. Taking every scan where Gyuki is in and calc its size is not correct.

I was told this wasn't a valid excuse when it came to the topic of revising the Seireitei. Inconsistency is inconsistency. Your method of scaling to the Biju requires far more scaling steps, escalating the margin for error.

And what the hell is this "cowardly" nonsense? Accusing others of cowardice for judging artwork? That's a weird take.

Don't be dishonest, Damage. You yourself used his word as a fact when you desperately tried to remove the calculation from Shinju's roots, and there are several other cases where you took his word as a fact. Why is it different now? Only accept when it suits you? DontTalk said mountains are not reliable to use, and he prefers different methods, so that's your answer for the last question.

I asked DontTalkDT about a specific method and he answered about a specific method. Don't get salty about it and try to play the "I consulted with DT and he told me to scrap your calc" card. DontTalkDT is clearly not saying that the calc needs to go and be replaced with literally anything.

He's saying reliability is important and a more reliable method should be used.

I agree with that. But I do not think the options you've offered are more reliable. There was a reason why we switched up to this calc in the first place.

 

[M3X_2.0]

DontTalk isn't saying "Literally any other calc is better." You have to show that another calc is more reliable.

I'm pretty sure saying "... in any way possible" means that any other method is better than using a random mountain to scale.

609 meters is the standard assumption for mountain size. And as for it being "1090 m" away, I made do with the nearest mountain. Obviously any other one further away would be even worse.

There are two Biju Bomb calcs in that blog post, please be specific as to your issues with each one.

It's not the nearest mountain, it's a mountain 1090m away. You can easily use the mountain on the side of the explosion. And no, Damage. I don't need to specify the calc I'm talking about. Only one of them uses the mountain, the other one is just a consequence of the previous one. I'm discussing the premisse of the calc, and if it gets rejected, then everything else is too.

Maybe the country size is wrong. Maybe being safer in our assumptions is just better. This is like me saying "You can't simply make a crater to be hundreds of kilometers across when we can clearly see the Juubi standing inside of it."

No Damage, not even close. Your method is wrong, not the country size. The country size is legit, your method not. It comes from a calculation, the mountain size is an assumption. An assumption that DontTalk doesn't like and rejects. The country size takes preference, not a random mountain assumed to be 609m.

I was told this wasn't a valid excuse when it came to the topic of revising the Seireitei. Inconsistency is inconsistency. Your method of scaling to the Biju requires far more scaling steps, escalating the margin for error.

And what the hell is this "cowardly" nonsense? Accusing others of cowardice for judging artwork? That's a weird take.

You missed the point. The Biju aren't inconsistent. If you take the art of one of the best artist in the world, and try to calculate the size of something using literally every panel that this thing is on, you'll obviously get different results. And since when this is inconsistent? This is just the calcer being dumb. You also missed the point of the cowardly part, just forget it.

I asked DontTalkDT about a specific method and he answered about a specific method. Don't get salty about it and try to play the "I consulted with DT and he told me to scrap your calc" card. DontTalkDT is clearly not saying that the calc needs to go and be replaced with literally anything.

I'm not using any card here, you are just dishonest as always. You act like that lazy method of using a mountain is better than a method using maps and concrete information, while any other person would know that a method with concrete information from the novel, used to find a distance and then the country size, is much better than assuming a random mountain to be 609m.

I agree with that. But I do not think the options you've offered are more reliable. There was a reason why we switched up to this calc in the first place.

You obviously don't think that, because it's your method. What makes a method using a random mountain and assuming its size, better than a method with information from the novel, using offical maps and the scans from the country?

 

[Arkenis]

You obviously don't think that, because it's your method. What makes a method using a random mountain and assuming its size, better than a method with information from the novel, using offical maps and the scans from the country?

What does the novel say ?

 

[KingTempest]

I honestly hate using large size characters to scale things.

I'd be fine w/ the country size but I'd also be fine w/ the mountains. I'm neutral tbh, I need a better reason to use both.

 

[M3X_2.0]

To use the country

• It uses canon information regarding timeframe and speed, then we found the distance between two villages.
  • This is backed up by the Calc Stacking page:
  • "Using a reliable stated timeframe and reliably stated speed something travels during that timeframe one can calculate the distance travelled. Said distance can then usually be used for calculations. (Take heed that paths don't need to be straight and that speed reliably has to be constant)"
• The distance is used to calc the size of the country, then the craters.
• All the craters are relative to the country size. And the country size should take the preference here, and not a random mountain, an assumption wich DT told he'd like other methods "in any way possible"

More pixelscaling steps isn't really an issue, since Jvando's calc uses only one more scan, and this scan is meant to increase the accuracy of what is being measured, and because I asked him "In feats where we can see a lot of mountains, should we use the mountain to scale the thing (ex: crater) or should we try more reliable methods - even if it uses more pixelscaling?" and I got the answer "Generally I would prefer other methods being used when in any way possible."

Honestly, I see no reason to use the mountain. They can vary in size a lot, what I used isn't variable like the mountain, it's concrete and canon information.

 

[Damage3245]

You're welcome to produce a calc for the Biju Bombs, and the calc group members can decide which method is more reliable.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Sorry, I don't think you understood. This is the thread for this.

 

[Damage3245]

Sorry, I don't think you understood. This is the thread for this.

Do you have a link to the alternative calc?

EDIT: I see one in the OP for using a shot of the planet. Is that the one you're proposing we use?

 

[M3X_2.0]

In the OP, yes. Just need to change for the map. I'll not do this now because I want to discuss the method, and if I get the country method accepted, I'll then edit the calc. I don't to waste my effort.

 

[Damage3245]

In the OP, yes. Just need to change for the map. I'll not do this now because I want to discuss the method, and if I get the country method accepted, I'll then edit the calc. I don't to waste my effort.

You should get somebody to make the calc first so we can judge it in full.

It's not really fair to ask people to judge between a calc that currently exists and a hypothetical calc that would be made after you've already gotten people's agreement.

 

[M3X_2.0]

It's not an hypothetical calc, Damage. I'm discussing the methods being used here. I said in the OP that all that needs to be done is change the planet shot to map, but everything will be same. But if you insist, I'll make a quick recalc after my lunch.

 

[M3X_2.0]

I finished the calc, and I'll ask for someone else to evaluate, since the discussion is between yours and mine.

 

[Omimi]

I honestly hate using large size characters to scale things.

I'd be fine w/ the country size but I'd also be fine w/ the mountains. I'm neutral tbh, I need a better reason to use both.

Mountain size= random assumption
Country size=no assumption
oops I didn't know it was calc group crt
so delete it if it wasn't useful info

 

[M3X_2.0]

My calculation was finally evaluated and we can finish this thread. My arguments:

To use the country

• It uses canon information regarding timeframe and speed, then we found the distance between two villages.
  • This is backed up by the Calc Stacking page:
  • "Using a reliable stated timeframe and reliably stated speed something travels during that timeframe one can calculate the distance travelled. Said distance can then usually be used for calculations. (Take heed that paths don't need to be straight and that speed reliably has to be constant)"
• The distance is used to calc the size of the country, then the craters.
• All the craters are relative to the country size. And the country size should take the preference here, and not a random mountain, an assumption wich DT told he'd like other methods "in any way possible"

More pixelscaling steps isn't really an issue, since Jvando's calc uses only one more scan, and this scan is meant to increase the accuracy of what is being measured, and because I asked him "In feats where we can see a lot of mountains, should we use the mountain to scale the thing (ex: crater) or should we try more reliable methods - even if it uses more pixelscaling?" and I got the answer "Generally I would prefer other methods being used when in any way possible."

Honestly, I see no reason to use the mountain. They can vary in size a lot, what I used isn't variable like the mountain, it's concrete and canon information.

And I'm using something I questioned, the mountain and crater sizes.

It's not the nearest mountain, it's a mountain 1090m away. You can easily use the mountain on the side of the explosion. And no, Damage. I don't need to specify the calc I'm talking about. Only one of them uses the mountain, the other one is just a consequence of the previous one. I'm discussing the premisse of the calc, and if it gets rejected, then everything else is too.

I was thinking a way to calculate the mountain size and just end up conceding this point for the sake of the calculation.

 

[KingTempest]

If M3X's calc is good, what's the issue?

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

I'm no calc expert or anything, but since this new method uses canonical information to determine the sizes of the craters, and the other method just assumes the sizes of the mountains, then this should be more reliable I think.

 

[Damage3245]

They can vary in size a lot, what I used isn't variable like the mountain, it's concrete and canon information

"Canon information"? Sure. But how is that not a variable? The statement you're using as the core basis of this entire calculation is:

Shinobi were more tenacious than camels, faster than horses, and they flew across the seas of sand with ease

I don't consider that to be as "concrete" as you make it out to be. That is no different than the assumption for reasonable minimum mountain size for the mountain that is actually next to the explosion itself.

Your method uses a lot more steps in order to reach its conclusion and while yes, the assumption for the mountain size is an assumption, it is a perfectly reasonable one and one used in plenty of calculations.

I want to use the geographical feature that is in the same panel as the feat in order to calculate it. You want to use a statement from a novel on Shinobi's travel speed (an inexact figure). Personally, I just prefer my method here.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Your method uses a lot more steps in order to reach its conclusion and while yes, the assumption for the mountain size is an assumption, it is a perfectly reasonable one and one used in plenty of calculations.

It doesn't matter if it uses more steps in order to reach a conclusion, I'm using canon information that is established by us. "Faster than horses" = Horses from our wiki that goes at 48.28km/h, timeframe can't change. You use something that can vary much more than the speed of the horse, since mountains can vary a lot in size in real life and when the mangaka draw them. The assumption of the mountain size isn't realiable.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

You want to use a statement from a novel on Shinobi's travel speed (an inexact figure).

I don't think that's the point M3X is attempting to make here.
That distance calculation is accepted already, and is not based on pixelscaling or any other wonky method, but rather uses information from a canonical source and little to no assumptions. The timeframe is a given, and the speed is pretty much a given since horse speed isn't completely uniform, but there's a known and accepted range for their speed. Mountains are far more variable in size, and we have no way of actually knowing how big the mountains are beyond making an educated guess (an assumption at the end of the day). Wouldn't that then mean that the other method technically assumes less information even if it has more steps?
I think that's the point he's attempting to make. More steps, but less assumptions.

 

[Damage3245]

I think that's the point he's attempting to make. More steps, but less assumptions.

I understand your point, but from my perspective it appears as "More steps and the same amount of assumptions."

The term given in the original statement isn't "As fast as horses" but "Faster than horses." That can vary be quite a lot as well. True, the distance calc uses a reasonable minimum figure for it - but that is the same with the mountain. It uses the a reasonable minimum figure for the minimum size of a mountain in comparison to the explosion.

Both are assumptions, both are based on "canon information"; a statement on Shinobi's travel speed and the existence of the mountain.

If you count treating the "three days" part of the timeframe as meaning "an exact figure of 72 hours for the journey" then that could count as an assumption too. A reasonable one again, of course, but part of the necessary assumptions for the distance calculation.

 

[KLOL506]

I think we should just plainly and directly ask DontTalkDT regarding which method of measurement is usable here, whether we use the country map in-verse or we use the mountains, and all the context regarding using them or not using them we discussed so far.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

The term given in the original statement isn't "As fast as horses" but "Faster than horses." That can vary be quite a lot as well. True, the distance calc uses a reasonable minimum figure for it - but that is the same with the mountain. It uses the a reasonable minimum figure for the minimum size of a mountain in comparison to the explosion.

Both are assumptions, both are based on "canon information"; a statement on Shinobi's travel speed and the existence of the mountain.

That's fair, but wouldn't the fact that one assumption is based on a direct statement, and the other one is not, make it somewhat more reliable?

If you count treating the "three days" part of the timeframe as meaning "an exact figure of 72 hours for the journey" then that could count as an assumption too. A reasonable one again, of course, but part of the necessary assumptions for the distance calculation.

I'm confused as to what you mean here. How is the three days portion an assumption when it's an exact stated timeframe? It's consistent too, as Jvando's calc points out, since the figure of three days was mentioned several times.

 

[Damage3245]

I think we should just plainly and directly ask DontTalkDT regarding which method of measurement is usable here, whether we use the country map in-verse or we use the mountains, and all the context regarding using them or not using them we discussed so far.

Both are usable.

The issue is which should be considered more reliable and accurate. DT can have his own opinions on that as well of course, but he doesn't decide that alone.

That's fair, but wouldn't the fact that one assumption is based on a direct statement, and the other one is not, make it somewhat more reliable?

If the statement was directly related to the feat, I'd consider it more relevant and reliable like; "That explosion is tens of kilometers across." or "This mountain is over three thousand meters high." Etc.

But in this case I don't think that the statement for Shinobi's travel speed is the single most reliable basis for scaling the size of these craters. I prefer the current method which uses a single panel, a single perspective that has both the explosion and mountain side by side.

As opposed to calculating the distance between two cities, comparing that distance to the width of a country on a map, and then switching perspective from a top-down view to a view from the side of that country and compare it to the crater in the distance. The switching of perspectives and the multiple steps used to reach the end result make me trust it less. That's all.

 

[KLOL506]

Both are usable.

The issue is which should be considered more reliable and accurate. DT can have his own opinions on that as well of course, but he doesn't decide that alone.

Well, he was the one who said the whole "Generally I would prefer other methods being used when in any way possible." thing so I'd like to actually see him comment on something he can actually directly see and say something about.

 

[Shadowbokunohero]

Using Canonical Sizes IMO should always take precedence over anything else unless said Canonical size is consistently Inconsistent.
So I agree with that Premise.

 

[Arkenis]

I'm no calc expert or anything, but since this new method uses canonical information to determine the sizes of the craters, and the other method just assumes the sizes of the mountains, then this should be more reliable I think.

Yes!

 

[Arkenis]

Using Canonical Sizes IMO should always take precedence over anything else unless said Canonical size is consistently Inconsistent.
So I agree with that Premise.

True!

 

[Damage3245]

Using Canonical Sizes IMO should always take precedence over anything else unless said Canonical size is consistently Inconsistent.
So I agree with that Premise.

If it was a stated size, then I would agree with you. I don't consider a calculated size to be the same thing as a canonically stated size.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

It's not directly stated, yes, but I believe the parameters used to obtain the size are legitimate.

 

[M3X_2.0]

@UchihaSlayer96 contacted DT, I'll wait for him.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I am mostly neutral, but I am leaning towards agreeing with M3X

I do think using canon size statements should be used over an assumed lowballed mountain height in most cases, but this isn't a mega direct canon size

 

[KLOL506]

I will remain neutral as well, though I also lean towards agreeing with M3X at the moment.

 

[KingTempest]

The argument that a stated distance is more acceptable and justifiable is a valid point which I agree with.
The argument that we have a stated speed and a stated timeframe literally ties up with the same thing above.

So in all actuality, we have a stated distance. It would be hypocritical for me to go against this as I've attempted this w/ other verses.

So honestly, I somehow agree with both points. The arguments are just technicalities. Since I agree w/ both... I guess I'm neutral?

Edit: Can yall please settle if "Faster than Horses" means "superior to the speed of horses that we have on the wiki" please?
This whole thread under #21 is just "Faster than Horses ≠ Faster than the value", and we need to sort that out.

 

[KingTempest]

Also.

Regardless if the size for Suna to Konoha is not liked by opposers of this thread, we need a thread for that.
It has been accepted, it's been used on multiple other calcs, it's been a spoken and unspoken rule to just leave it how it is.

So if somehow we ignore M3X's calc, another thread is required for the 3kkm distance. Because if M3X's calc is declined, we'll need to tackle that size in general. That shouldn't be argued in here.

 

[Damage3245]

Assuming the distance is perfectly correct, what you have is a size that you are using a map to scale to a different part of the continent, that you are then comparing from a different perspective to a shot of the crater. Then using that size to compare to a different shot of the crater to figure out the volume of destroyed material.

Whereas with the current method we are just comparing the explosion and the mountain within a single panel and using that to figure out the volume of destroyed material.

Extra scaling steps, taken across different perspectives, does affect the reliability of a calculation in my view.

And what guarantee of consistency do we have? There is another scaling method, that involves scaling to the characters themselves. It's less preferable to me but it should give an indication as to which size is more consistent.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Damage, just chill. You don't need to attack the method every time you comment here. For now, using a mountain is rejected. Wait for DT.