One Piece Calcs Timeframe

[Damage3245]

There are two accepted versions of the calcs for Pica's feats of manipulating stone in chapter 749 and chapter 777.

The first versio calculated by CinCameron20 assumes 1.33 seconds and 2 seconds respectively for the feats.

The second versio calculated by myself assumes between 5 and 10 seconds for the two feats with either end being accepted for both feats.

After a conversation with DontTalkDT on his message wall, it looks like the current justifications for highballing the timeframe of the feats to be as low as 1.33 seconds is not based on solid evidence. It is the result of arbitrary expectations of dust clouds which could linger for several seconds especially at the large size implied by the size of Pica's statue.

The timeframes of the feats is necessarily brief due to context of the events, but there is no reason to assume it took anything less than 5 seconds for the large masses of stone to be completely moved.

Personally I support 5 seconds for the first feat and 10 seconds for the second feat as there is a larger volume of stone being moved in the second feat.

I would appreciate input from any calc group members to see what they think about the timeframes.

 

[AlexSoloVaAlFuturo]

"Well, eh, when a dust could is made, at first it moves at some high speed because of the energy that the thing that gave it, and then at some point it loses it and start to move slowly because of its low mass. One of the problems of this feat is because it is unknown at what point of the dust cloud drawed on the manga was moving at high speed and at what point it started to move slowly. We can't use the high speed part because it is also unknown if the drawed one reached x place at the same time as the regenerated part; we can only use the stuff showed, and it is unknown if it is high or low speed."

So yeah, use a timeframe that take this stuff into consideration.

 

[Damage3245]

Thank you for the comment. That also helps summarize some of my issues with using the timeframe based on assumptions around how the dust would spread.

 

[Executor_N0]

The question seems justifiable to me, with the information contained here I believe that the standard estimates of 5 and 10 seconds should be used.

 

[Damage3245]

Thanks for the input. I'll make a CRT for this.

CRT has been created here: https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3902075

 

[The_Calaca]

Have you called Cin?

 

[CinCameron20]

I literally explained the justification for the time-frames on either the wall, or the relevant thread. Either way it was accepted. I don't see why this topic is being brought up at a time where we are discussing other edits.

Not wasting my time with this distraction. Will simply fix it later.

 

[Antvasima]

@Cin

It would be appreciated if you help out now though, or there is a big risk for downgrades.

 

[Damage3245]

@Antvasima; you say that like it is a bad thing. Upgrades & downgrades aren't inherently good or bad, accuracy is what is important.

 

[Antvasima]

True enough, but I would prefer both sides to have their say first.

 

[PlumCrayfish376]

Honestly, I feel like the timeframe should be somewhere around 3 to 5 seconds given that both feat occur in one and two panels respectively.

 

[Eminiteable]

Yeah agreed, 5 seconds definitely still feels like a low end honestly.

 

[Damage3245]

@Eminiteable; this is a better discussion for the other thread since the calc has been accepted as is, and other calc group members are fine with a standard 5 to 10 second assumption.

We can use the five second version of the calcs for scaling.

 

[Antvasima]

What is left to do here?

 

[PlumCrayfish376]

Well, the thread has kinda served it purpose since a calc group member came and said that they are okay with Damage's proposed timeframe.

Though I feel like given that the feat occurred in one to two panels in the manga, that the timeframe could be around 3 to 5 instead of 5 to 10.

Also, I found the original discussion between Cin and Damage on the timeframe - https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3873805. Just leaving it here

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Should we close this thread then?

 

[Damage3245]

Yeah, I'll close it since it has ran its course.