One Piece: New Calculation Implementation, Pre and Post Timeskip Revision

[KingTempest]

Getting straight to the point

Sea King KE (Weird Method of Proportions)

vsbattles.fandom.com

Issho's Redirected Meteor

vsbattles.fandom.com

It's time for the scaling from Enies Lobby up to EOS to get affected.

Sea King Scaling​

Now first things first is the first calculation, which affects the scaling of people to Sea Kings.

We can see in this L blog that there are multiple showings of Sea Kings being harmed by people and such.
"Why should we scale them to their KE?" With the first scan, we show that their KE is how they attack, and they ram into things and survive.
Those who can beat sea kings are usually implied to be able to be stronger than them since they defeat them so easily.

So since the basic default sea king shape is an eel, I calculated a basic eel Sea King's KE, which resulted into a result of 45.743 Megatons.

Now, since multiple people scale from it, mainly I'll use T Bone since he cut a large portion of it in half (should most definitely scale to the KE of this), and he's stated to be below the entirety of CP9.

T Bone cut a sea king in half, and it's stated that he's below the likes of the people who are drastically inferior to CP9, and even a CP7 member, so here's what we'll do.
Wanze, who scales above T Bone and has a weird backscaling method from Sanji, now can just scale above T Bone, which is much safer than whatever we had.

Nero Scaling (Midball, Very Safe Midball)​

He's stated to be inferior to the likes of Nero. Lucci said that Nero isn't even a Superhuman. Yet it's stated that having a Doriki of 500 makes you superhuman.

So having a doriki of 500 makes you automatically above the likes of Nero.
With the Doriki scaling in place, here are the new values.

Spoiler

Baseline (500): >45.743 Megatons (7-B)
Kalifa (630): 57.636 Megatons (7-B+)
Fukurou (800): 73.188 Megatons (7-B+)
Kumadori (810): 74.103 Megatons (7-B+)
Blueno (820): 75.018 Megatons (7-B+)
Jabra (2180): 199.439 Megatons (7-A)
Kaku (2200): 201.269 Megatons (7-A)
Lucci (4000): 365.944 Megatons (7-A)

Base Luffy/Base Lucci = 365.944 Megatons (7-A)
Lucci, with Rokushiki, tanks a bazooka. Luffy Gear 2 Jet Pistol is better than Bazooka.
Gear 2 Luffy = 731.888 Megatons (7-A+)
Hybrid Lucci can tank G2's Jet Bazooka with his Tekkai. Gear 3rd breaks this man's tekkai.
Gear 3 Luffy = 1.463 Gigatons (High 7-A)

Battleship Scaling​

The Marine battleship has its own durability rating now, as it took a meteor to the hull and wasn't that damaged, with only a small hole protruding from the base, producing a very small hole.

Now the scaling of these ships isn't too hard, as each battleship is capable of destroying each other to insane extents, multiple times, over and over.

Little Oars Jr is capable of taking these cannon shots, which are shown in the same fight of being capable of harming other ships. Moria can hurt Little Oars Jr, and so can Kuma, destroying his sword.
"They hurt an injured Kuma" he was even more injured when he took those final cannon shots. They were the reason he was injured before those last shots.

Now, the strawhats were much closer to the epicenter of the ursus shock than the ends of Oars III's sword and the other parts of Oars III's body, with Sanji and Zoro (who were badly injured) withstanding it.

As we know, Oars can hurt Sanji and Zoro. He scales. With the scaling on the profiles, Usopp, Franky, Chopper, etc. scale to half.
Oars and co, 679.540 Megatons
Fodds, 339.770 Megatons

Post Timeskip Hody Multiplier​

Spoiler

Profile stuff.
Overdosed Hody is over 32x stronger than Usopp.
339.770 * 32 = 10.872 Gigatons (Island level)
Monster Hody is over 4x stronger than that.
339.770 * 128 = 43.490 Gigatons (Island level)

And that's the gist of it all, so in conclusion​

Doriki scaling gets revised
Oars and Thriller Bark characters get changed up
Post Timeskip is affected.

 

[Mr.Cinos15]

The Mad Lad is back at it again.

Nice job King, I agree with all the sections.

 

[Eseseso]

@KingTempest the GOAT does it again!

 

[Damage3245]

Now, since multiple people scale from it, mainly I'll use T Bone since he cut a large portion of it in half (should most definitely scale to the KE of this), and he's stated to be below the entirety of CP9.

My biggest issue is that Sea Kings are not constant in size.

When Franky killed a Sea King, he stated it was at least 100 meters long.

The Sea King that T-Bone sliced up is 5 times longer than the train (and I'm pretty sure the train is not a kilometer long).

From the databook, I would take the size statement as being for those Sea Kings in particular or ones comparable to them. There is no antifeat for their size being that big, and they're the ones pictured when the size statement is given.

I believe that the calc for T-Bone's feat of slicing the Sea King should be changed to be for that Sea King specifically, and should not use 5000 meters by default.

 

[Mazdoesstuff]

Isn’t surface area a reason why people usually don’t scale to the durability of larger characters? I recall someone on a OPM revision thread talking about it

 

[KingTempest]

My biggest issue is that Sea Kings are not constant in size.

I'd say Oda's not consistent with drawing them, or that the vague statements of sea kings sizes from inverse characters have flawed basis

When Franky killed a Sea King, he stated it was at least 100 meters long.

after only seeing its head, and he couldn't even see the whole thing.

The Sea King that T-Bone sliced up is 5 times longer than the train (and I'm pretty sure the train is not a kilometer long).

Nope, cause they only said that the one was 5x longer than the sea train only while seeing its head. They didn't see the entirety of the sea king, and those guys are no authority in the size of the sea kings whatsoever.

this is with franky as well, these guys are no authorities on real sea king sizes. It's like seeing a brick and assuming the size of a house based on it.

From the databook, I would take the size statement as being for those Sea Kings in particular or ones comparable to them. There is no antifeat for their size being that big, and they're the ones pictured when the size statement is given.

It's a general sea king size statement

shoot, atp i'm even believing that oda's proportions and size when it comes to drawing the sea kings is flawed.
these are the same sea kings he said were 5km.

And that ship on top of them is 13 meters long.

Yet these are the ones he said were 5km long, and when we see them in FMI, it's much more justified

I believe that the calc for T-Bone's feat of slicing the Sea King should be changed to be for that Sea King specifically, and should not use 5000 meters by default.

I disagree for the reasons I provided, but I understand your viewpoint

 

[KingTempest]

Isn’t surface area a reason why people usually don’t scale to the durability of larger characters? I recall someone on a OPM revision thread talking about it

difference between hurting a small portion of a continental size creature with leaving human size wounds vs completely slicing in half a creature that isn't too much larger

 

[Damage3245]

When it comes to the feats, I think we should look at the specific context of them - and the manga does take priority over the databook. I can understand also why you'd prefer to use 1 figure consistently for them like 5,000 meters, but the Sea Kings themselves are not consistent and universally the same size. Would we just assume as well that a Sea King is born 5,000 meters long and never grows an inch in its life?

 

[KingTempest]

Sea Kings don't have a unit size, but the statement says "at least 5km", meaning that the smallest ones are 5km and the larger ones are much larger

 

[Damage3245]

Sea Kings don't have a unit size, but the statement says "at least 5km", meaning that the smallest ones are 5km and the larger ones are much larger

I don't have a problem with accepting that those Sea Kings are that size, but I think it's an unnecessary high ball to try and apply that to every single other Sea King, when we have conflicting statements on their size.

At the very least I think an alternative end should be calced for their roughly stated sizes.

 

[KingTempest]

I don't have a problem with accepting that those Sea Kings are that size, but I think it's an unnecessary high ball to try and apply that to every single other Sea King, when we have conflicting statements on their size.

At the very least I think an alternative end should be calced for their roughly stated sizes.

They don't have roughly stated sizes, they have garbage assumed sizes from unreliable sources who can only see a small fraction of their body

I don't think a general statement for sea king sizes is invalid, especially when
A. It's a general statement
B. The sizes have never been truly contradicted

We did the same for Oars III, took his stated size outside of the manga over his contradicting sizes in the manga, fail to see why we can't do it here, especially when we have a size that hasn't been contradicted

 

[Damage3245]

Personally I don't think the statements are garbage. On-screen we can only see the head of the Sea King Franky killed, but we don't have full vision of what he can see. And Sea King's don't have bodies that is 49 times longer than their head.

And for the one T-Bone killed, we don't know that only its head is visible. It could just haver a short body and they're making a judgement of its size with most of its body actually visible to them.

 

[SnookB]

Oda will always draw characters/objects bigger to highlight them. Zoro for example is a visible dot between Pica's two halves when he has no business even being seen in that frame.
Oda's inconsistent with sizes to show you where things are, I agree that prioritizing a statement is better, otherwise every character based on the manga is either much smaller or bigger than their given size depending on how they're drawn. See king vs zoro, zoro vs pica, sea kings compared to noah and the merry, Oars jr's size changing compared to the battleships, and much more

 

[KingTempest]

Personally I don't think the statements are garbage. On-screen we can only see the head of the Sea King Franky killed, but we don't have full vision of what he can see.

Can you accurately measure the length of a snake by looking at its head alone?

And Sea King's don't have bodies that is 49 times longer than their head.

Yes, they do
Cause one of the ones in the picture stated to be 5km long had a head that didn't even look over 150 meters

And for the one T-Bone killed, we don't know that only its head is visible. It could just haver a short body and they're making a judgement of its size with most of its body actually visible to them.

Damage, we most definitely do know that only its head is visible.

 

[Damage3245]

Can you accurately measure the length of a snake by looking at its head alone?

We don't know that he can only see the head. The rest of the Sea King is off-panel, and if he's been fighting it off-panel earlier then he may have seen more of it than what we can see.

Franky also doesn't say "That head is 100 meters long." There is no reason to think that he's seeing the head and thinking that the whole thing is only as long as its head.

Yes, they do
Cause one of the ones in the picture stated to be 5km long had a head that didn't even look over 150 meters

I guess it varies, but generally that didn't seem like the case.

Damage, we most definitely do know that only its head is visible.

The head is at the forefront of the panel, but we can see that there is more of it visible than just its face in the severed half in the background.

Some of the Sea Kings have a body type like this....

 

[KingTempest]

We don't know that he can only see the head. The rest of the Sea King is off-panel, and if he's been fighting it off-panel earlier then he may have seen more of it than what we can see.

He hit it with 1 attack from his ship, and you know better than i do that hypotheticals aren't useful in this case

Franky also doesn't say "That head is 100 meters long." There is no reason to think that he's seeing the head and thinking that the whole thing is only as long as its head.

"It's at least 100 meters long" after looking at only the head

I guess it varies, but generally that didn't seem like the case.

Nah it does, cause that was the case for like 15 different sea kings in those same instances

The head is at the forefront of the panel, but we can see that there is more of it visible than just its face in the severed half in the background.

So please show me the rest that I apparently can't see, since this is like the head and the neck and that's it

Some of the Sea Kings have a body type like this....

Specific sea kings match specific animals.
That is resembling a blowfish, which usually has those proportions
What creature resembles the one T Bone cut that has a shape like that

 

[Damage3245]

"It's at least 100 meters long" after looking at only the head

We don't know he's only looking at the head. The Sea King's body continues off-panel.

Also the existence of the Lord of the Coast, who is confirmed as a Sea King apparently, proves that there exists Sea Kings who don't conform to the 5000 meter statement.

So please show me the rest that I apparently can't see, since this is like the head and the neck and that's it

For all we know, that's its full length.

 

[KingTempest]

We don't know he's only looking at the head. The Sea King's body continues off-panel.

And it's on top of water, which means a portion of its body is underwater, unless sea kings can float now

Also the existence of the Lord of the Coast, who is confirmed as a Sea King apparently, proves that there exists Sea Kings who don't conform to the 5000 meter statement.

We ain't never see the bottom of it. For all we know it's a super long sea king with the thickness of a keyboard.

And regardless that means that those are the exceptions to the rule, or outliers in the grand scheme of a sea king's size.

For all we know, that's its full length.

If that's the full length when we see part of it going underwater and it's shaped like a hemisphere, then that's not a sea king

 

[Damage3245]

And it's on top of water, which means a portion of its body is underwater, unless sea kings can float now

Their corpses can. We can see one floating here as well.

We ain't never see the bottom of it. For all we know it's a super long sea king with the thickness of a keyboard.

Supplemental material shows that it's not that long if you go by the anime's concept art at least. But apparently it was called small in the databook as well.

And regardless that means that those are the exceptions to the rule, or outliers in the grand scheme of a sea king's size.

Right, and that is why I'm against an assumption for 5000 meters being applied here.

 

[KingTempest]

Their corpses can. We can see one floating here as well.

Again, only the head

Supplemental material shows that it's not that long if you go by the anime's concept art at least. But apparently it was called small in the databook as well.

Then that's an exception to the rule, since it's a special sea king that's stated to be small

Right, and that is why I'm against an assumption for 5000 meters being applied here.

You're arguing against a creature being the average because outliers exist.
That isn't a good argument

 

[Damage3245]

Will continue this when I can tomorrow. Got some more thoughts.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

So I was looking at the 5000 m Sea King statement. And I do believe there is some good debate to be had over whether that should be taken for every Sea King or not. I think what should be done is to compare the Sea King pixel scaled sizes to that statement and check for consistency.

Because that statement about 5000 m Sea Kings isn’t inherently an all encompassing statement. And we clearly see Sea King vary in size. Just like if I pointed to a group of NBA players and said “these athletes are over 7 feet tall” we wouldn’t assume every athlete is at least 7 feet tall. So there should definitely be some size checking of these monsters to provide consistency to one interpretation or the other.

 

[Eseseso]

So I was looking at the 5000 m Sea King statement. And I do believe there is some good debate to be had over whether that should be taken for every Sea King or not. I think what should be done is to compare the Sea King pixel scaled sizes to that statement and check for consistency.

Because that statement about 5000 m Sea Kings isn’t inherently an all encompassing statement. And we clearly see Sea King vary in size. Just like if I pointed to a group of NBA players and said “these athletes are over 7 feet tall” we wouldn’t assume every athlete is at least 7 feet tall. So there should definitely be some size checking of these monsters to provide consistency to one interpretation or the other.

Good point(s).

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I’d also like to mention that the statement itself is “estimated to be over 5000 m long” so that statement in and of itself isn’t inherently better than Franky or Zoro’s as they are all estimations and not actual measurements.

 

[KingTempest]

So I was looking at the 5000 m Sea King statement. And I do believe there is some good debate to be had over whether that should be taken for every Sea King or not. I think what should be done is to compare the Sea King pixel scaled sizes to that statement and check for consistency.

The pixelscaling all contradicts each other because Oda is shit when it comes to large creature size consistency, which is why people here thought Zunesha was 1km till we got the 35km height.

The specific group of creatures that were in the picture that he said were 5km looks much smaller when pixelscaled, but those were the same ones he said were 5km.

Because that statement about 5000 m Sea Kings isn’t inherently an all encompassing statement. And we clearly see Sea King vary in size. Just like if I pointed to a group of NBA players and said “these athletes are over 7 feet tall” we wouldn’t assume every athlete is at least 7 feet tall. So there should definitely be some size checking of these monsters to provide consistency to one interpretation or the other.

Nah we would, if you had a basis to the statement of all of those guys being over 7 feet tall, then the shortest one would be at least 7 feet tall.
Also, you with basketball players isn't really better than characters

I’d also like to mention that the statement itself is “estimated to be over 5000 m long” so that statement in and of itself isn’t inherently better than Franky or Zoro’s as they are all estimations and not actual measurements.

Not the best argument. this is the author saying it, and he "estimated" the heights of every other creature on the page, which had their sizes accurately verified and stated via the vivre cards, so he's probably the most credible source when damn near almost every single creature on that page has their canon height and their "estimated" height to be the exact same

Franky's statement has no validity when he's completely eyeballing the creature
Zoro had no statement, it was one of the randoms who only saw a small portion of a creature and said it was 5x larger than the sea train, which somehow Damage is trying to argue is the entire creature
The author made these creatures. I'm pretty sure he's a better source than the others who are eyeballing fractions of the creatures

 

[SnookB]

So I was looking at the 5000 m Sea King statement. And I do believe there is some good debate to be had over whether that should be taken for every Sea King or not. I think what should be done is to compare the Sea King pixel scaled sizes to that statement and check for consistency.

Because that statement about 5000 m Sea Kings isn’t inherently an all encompassing statement. And we clearly see Sea King vary in size. Just like if I pointed to a group of NBA players and said “these athletes are over 7 feet tall” we wouldn’t assume every athlete is at least 7 feet tall. So there should definitely be some size checking of these monsters to provide consistency to one interpretation or the other.

the problem is we know their size (even for the same sea kings) is inconsistently drawn and the statement is the only thing that's at least somewhat consistent about them. Much like Oars, some characters heights, etc..

 

[SnookB]

I’d also like to mention that the statement itself is “estimated to be over 5000 m long” so that statement in and of itself isn’t inherently better than Franky or Zoro’s as they are all estimations and not actual measurements.

It's literally unreliable any other way because this zebra sea king as well as the puffer fish and frog all look huge compared to the Noah, yet here are drawn vastly smaller.
Hell that same chapter the zebra's head in the bigger panel looks one size while here the head alone is like half the size of Noah almost. This is one of the cases where author statement is by far more consistent than the drawn size

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

The pixelscaling all contradicts each other because Oda is shit when it comes to large creature size consistency, which is why people here thought Zunesha was 1km till we got the 35km height.

The specific group of creatures that were in the picture that he said were 5km looks much smaller when pixelscaled, but those were the same ones he said were 5km.

The thing is they aren’t objectively stated that size they’re estimated that size. So that leaves wiggle room for inconsistencies. Hence, why I say provide some consistency checks.

Nah we would, if you had a basis to the statement of all of those guys being over 7 feet tall, then the shortest one would be at least 7 feet tall.
Also, you with basketball players isn't really better than characters

Not at all, that’s an ignorant appeal. Just because we know those NBA players are 7ft tall and are called athletes does not mean you can claim all athletes are 7ft tall without supporting evidence.

Not the best argument. this is the author saying it, and he "estimated" the heights of every other creature on the page, which had their sizes accurately verified and stated via the vivre cards, so he's probably the most credible source when damn near almost every single creature on that page has their canon height and their "estimated" height to be the exact same

Franky's statement has no validity when he's completely eyeballing the creature
Zoro had no statement, it was one of the randoms who only saw a small portion of a creature and said it was 5x larger than the sea train, which somehow Damage is trying to argue is the entire creature
The author made these creatures. I'm pretty sure he's a better source than the others who are eyeballing fractions of the creatures

It doesn’t matter who’s saying it. If the author concedes it isn’t a concrete value than you can’t use the argument “it’s from a databook so it’s superior”. In the absence of an objectively correct measurement, and in the presence of only conjectures, you need to evaluate the sizes to determine what is most consistent. I’m not arguing that Franky or Zoro are inherently more correct than the databook, I’m saying all 3 statements or hypotheses not statements of fact.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

All I’m saying, it isn’t a bad idea to scale the Sea Kings that are stated to be estimated 5 km long, and then use that information to validate the statement through “yeah it’s about 5 km long” or “yeah these creatures aren’t consistently depicted across other panels” or invalidate it through “yeah they’re consistently X size”.

 

[Damage3245]

There is also the issue that the timeframe used to find the Sea Kings KE is taken from a completely different Sea King. That value can't be applied reliably to the creature that T-Bone sliced.

 

[KingTempest]

The thing is they aren’t objectively stated that size they’re estimated that size. So that leaves wiggle room for inconsistencies. Hence, why I say provide some consistency checks.

"Estimated" by the person who made them.
You won't get consistency checks from inconsistent scaling shots.

Not at all, that’s an ignorant appeal. Just because we know those NBA players are 7ft tall and are called athletes does not mean you can claim all athletes are 7ft tall without supporting evidence.

You know there's a big difference between looking at a select group of NBA players to make an assumption of every NBA player's height
VS you creating every member of a species and automatically knowing their size

It doesn’t matter who’s saying it. If the author concedes it isn’t a concrete value than you can’t use the argument “it’s from a databook so it’s superior”. In the absence of an objectively correct measurement, and in the presence of only conjectures, you need to evaluate the sizes to determine what is most consistent. I’m not arguing that Franky or Zoro are inherently more correct than the databook, I’m saying all 3 statements or hypotheses not statements of fact.

Arc, no.

Nobody is saying "it's from a databook so it's superior".

You're saying "it's an estimation so we don't know how valid it is".
I'm saying "the person who made this estimation was correct for literally every other estimation he made".

You're taking "estimation" as "baselessly assumed" for some reason. Estimated is the approximation, and when it's estimated by the author, who by our standards is the most credible source there is in a situation like this vs a bunch of random baseless assumptions, then it isn't the same

All I’m saying, it isn’t a bad idea to scale the Sea Kings that are stated to be estimated 5 km long, and then use that information to validate the statement through “yeah it’s about 5 km long” or “yeah these creatures aren’t consistently depicted across other panels” or invalidate it through “yeah they’re consistently X size”.

It's a bad idea to use inconsistent scans to justify shit like this.
Let me remind you this discussion was had and the final consensus was "too bad, author's statement > everything else".

We did the same for Oars III, took his stated size outside of the manga over his contradicting sizes in the manga, fail to see why we can't do it here, especially when we have a size that hasn't been contradicted

 

[KingTempest]

There is also the issue that the timeframe used to find the Sea Kings KE is taken from a completely different Sea King. That value can't be applied reliably to the creature that T-Bone sliced.

#1 I measured the average serpentine like sea king's speed
#2 Most sea kings are around the same speed

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

"Estimated" by the person who made them.
You won't get consistency checks from inconsistent scaling shots.

You’re missing the point, technically Oda estimated for the databook statement, Zoro, and Franky, since he wrote all 3. That doesn’t make it inherently better. I’m recommending compiling proof that the sizes are inconsistent and shouldn’t be used rather than just eyeball everything. Put the debate down for good.

You know there's a big difference between looking at a select group of NBA players to make an assumption of every NBA player's height
VS you creating every member of a species and automatically knowing their size

The anecdote works the same. Let’s say almighty God made the claim, the argument remains valid.

Arc, no.

Nobody is saying "it's from a databook so it's superior".

You're saying "it's an estimation so we don't know how valid it is".
I'm saying "the person who made this estimation was correct for literally every other estimation he made".

You're taking "estimation" as "baselessly assumed" for some reason. Estimated is the approximation, and when it's estimated by the author, who by our standards is the most credible source there is in a situation like this vs a bunch of random baseless assumptions, then it isn't the same

I addressed this above, but I’m also not saying it’s baseless. I’m saying compile more evidence to support which interpretation is best.

It's a bad idea to use inconsistent scans to justify shit like this.
Let me remind you this discussion was had and the final consensus was "too bad, author's statement > everything else".

Said author’s statement isn’t an objective statement, that argument doesn’t work.

#1 I measured the average serpentine like sea king's speed
#2 Most sea kings are around the same speed

cmon man you know speed can vary, we gotta use the speeds for the actual object in question during the scene. The exact reason we cannot use a characters speed rating for calcs is the same reason you can’t use other Sea King speeds for a different Sea King

 

[Eseseso]

While the Sea King stuff seems like it's going to have a debate to settle, does everyone agree with the Battleship calc and the scaling for the battleship calc?

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

While the Sea King stuff seems like it's going to have a debate to settle, does everyone agree with the Battleship calc and the scaling for the battleship calc?

I think the Battleship stuff works, KT explained it to me and it seems valid.

 

[Damage3245]

While the Sea King stuff seems like it's going to have a debate to settle, does everyone agree with the Battleship calc and the scaling for the battleship calc?

Haven't investigated that yet, so I'm neutral.

 

[SnookB]

You’re missing the point, technically Oda estimated for the databook statement, Zoro, and Franky, since he wrote all 3. That doesn’t make it inherently better. I’m recommending compiling proof that the sizes are inconsistent and shouldn’t be used rather than just eyeball everything. Put the debate down for good.

Pretty sure this is contradicted
Luffy "estimates" Oars size to be twice as tall as the giants (dorry and broggy) when he's 3 times bigger by Oda's estimation. Oda conveying info through characters is shown inaccurate compared to his own statements.

 

[KingTempest]

You’re missing the point, technically Oda estimated for the databook statement, Zoro, and Franky, since he wrote all 3. That doesn’t make it inherently better. I’m recommending compiling proof that the sizes are inconsistent and shouldn’t be used rather than just eyeball everything. Put the debate down for good.

I don't think you understand the issue with the "Zoro one".

They saw a portion of it and said "it's 5x larger".

Nobody said that one is wrong, we mainly said that it's only a small portion of it that they saw.

And "since he wrote all 3' is not the same. He can write flawed characters and flawed views like he does all the time with the repeated sizes of the ancient giants in comparison to regular giants.

The anecdote works the same. Let’s say almighty God made the claim, the argument remains valid.

If God himself said a bunch of people are 7 feet tall, then either he's lying or they're 7 feet tall. That is a whole different ballgame.

I addressed this above, but I’m also not saying it’s baseless. I’m saying compile more evidence to support which interpretation is best.

This is not a matter of "interpretation".
This is a matter of "the author said this about the entire creature, and these guys said it about a portion of the creature".

Said author’s statement isn’t an objective statement, that argument doesn’t work.

How is it not an objective statement? Because it says "estimated"? You do realize what an estimation is correct?

cmon man you know speed can vary, we gotta use the speeds for the actual object in question during the scene. The exact reason we cannot use a characters speed rating for calcs is the same reason you can’t use other Sea King speeds for a different Sea King

There is no speed because the creature was dead. There was no speed for it.

And when the average creature is shown to move at the same speed, then there's no issue for it.

The reason we can't use a speed rating for calcs is cause of completely different reasons. Because on this same wiki, we use scaled speeds of people for calcs.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

To quote the calc stacking page:

Using the calculated speed of a projectile to calculate the speed of a character dodging said projectile on the very same occasion is usually permitted, as long as the projectile wouldn't have changed its speed mid flight.

If you want to use the calculated speed of an object (the Sea King) to calculate another feat in the same occasion (Zoro stopping the Sea King’s KE), you absolutely must calculate the speed in the same occasion. It is against our rules otherwise. So, yes using another Sea King’s speed is blatantly against our rules.

 

[Deceived3596]

To quote the calc stacking page:



If you want to use the calculated speed of an object (the Sea King) to calculate another feat in the same occasion (Zoro stopping the Sea King’s KE), you absolutely must calculate the speed in the same occasion. It is against our rules otherwise. So, yes using another Sea King’s speed is blatantly against our rules.

Damn