• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arc7Kuroi said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's not Zoro stopping the Sea King's KE.

It's the Sea King's KE being used to find the Sea King's durability, and T-Bone sliced that Sea King in half which enables him to scale to its durability.

Though I am personally against it because I find it unreliable; the height of the Sea King's head / width is assumed, the Sea King is assumed to be 5,000 meters long, and the speed of the Sea King is found for a different Sea King and assumed to be applicable to this other Sea King.
 
Damage3245 said:
It's not Zoro stopping the Sea King's KE.

It's the Sea King's KE being used to find the Sea King's durability, and T-Bone sliced that Sea King in half which enables him to scale to its durability.

Though I am personally against it because I find it unreliable; the height of the Sea King's head / width is assumed, the Sea King is assumed to be 5,000 meters long, and the speed of the Sea King is found for a different Sea King and assumed to be applicable to this other Sea King.
Click to expand...
In that case replace (calculate Zoro’s AP) with (calculate Sea King’s Durability)
 
Arc7Kuroi said:
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.
Click to expand...
That has absolutely nothing to do with the feat at hand, and that isn't even the feat

I'm calcing the yield of the AVERAGE sea king, using the clearest speed of a sea king shown with a calced mass and finding KE from it

We're not calcing this sea king. We're calcing the average sea king
 
KingTempest said:
That has absolutely nothing to do with the feat at hand, and that isn't even the feat

I'm calcing the yield of the AVERAGE sea king, using the clearest speed of a sea king shown with a calced mass and finding KE from it

We're not calcing this sea king. We're calcing the average sea king
Click to expand...
KT you are not allowed to use the speed of other Sea King’s to calculate the KE of a Sea King in a separate scene.

If you want to use the calculated speed of an object to find something else, it must be during the same occasion.

Calculating other average Sea King speeds to calculate another feat is calc stacking by our very standards.
 
Sea Kings vary drastically in terms of size, mass, body type, etc. I don't think it is accurate to label the Sea King that T-Bone sliced up as having reliably "average durability" based on a number of factors that are assumed.

Calculating 1 Sea King's KE does not grant an average KE for Sea Kings.
 
Arc7Kuroi said:
KT you are not allowed to use the speed of other Sea King’s to calculate the KE of a Sea King in a separate scene.

If you want to use the calculated speed of an object to find something else, it must be during the same occasion.

Calculating other average Sea King speeds to calculate another feat is calc stacking by our very standards.
Click to expand...
"Separate scene".

What scene am I using arc?

Because I'm using 1 scene and an assumed mass.

I used an assumed mass and a calced speed for 1 sea king.

I didn't calc the yield of the sea king T Bone cut.
I calced the yield of the average sea king.

This isn't calc stacking by any means
 
KingTempest said:
"Separate scene".

What scene am I using arc?

Because I'm using 1 scene and an assumed mass.

I used an assumed mass and a calced speed for 1 sea king.

I didn't calc the yield of the sea king T Bone cut.
I calced the yield of the average sea king.

This isn't calc stacking by any means
Click to expand...
If you calc’d a different sea kings speed and thus their durability, then you absolutely cannot claim a separate sea king is that fast and thus that durable. You need to calculate the speed and durability of that specific sea king. Otherwise it is objectively calc stacking.
 
I don't think that "calc stacking" is the right term here. It's just a matter of, if you calced the KE of two Sea Kings that are both assumed to be 5,000 meters long... their KE would still be different because of their body shapes, and other factors like width/height, are different and that means their mass is different, their speed is different... and ultimately their KE is different.

Calculating 1 Sea King's KE does not give you an average.
 
Damage3245 said:
body shapes, and other factors like width/height, are different and that means their mass is different, their speed is different...
Click to expand...
The speed doesn't seem to be too different imo. All the sea kings that carried Noah swim at the same speeds from the looks of it. Though the body weight and all I agree with.
 
Damage3245 said:
I don't think that "calc stacking" is the right term here. It's just a matter of, if you calced the KE of two Sea Kings that are both assumed to be 5,000 meters long... their KE would still be different because of their body shapes, and other factors like width/height, are different and that means their mass is different, their speed is different...
Click to expand...
It pisses me off that you guys keep saying this when I sent you a video of at least a dozen sea kings with completely different physical attributes moving at the same speed
Damage3245 said:
and ultimately their KE is different.

Calculating 1 Sea King's KE does not give you an average.
Click to expand...
Did you even read the calculation?

The calculation is calculating the average sea king.

The average sea king is a long serpentine creature, so I used the mass and speed of the average long serpentine creature.
 
Here’s an article on sample sizes and why small sample sizes being used to represent an entire population is more often incorrect and a misrepresentation of data: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6970301/

You cannot claim that “these 10 sea kings have similar speeds therefore this other sea king must have that similar speed”. You are using an extremely small sample size to represent an entire population, there are plenty of scientific papers proving that to be unethical and wrong in terms of representing a population.
 
@KingTempest; We're not trying to piss you off. I'll step away from the thread for an hour or so.

We're just explaining the issues as they appear to us. I know that your calculation is for what you see as the average Sea King, but I don't think it works out as simply as you're putting it.

Last thing I want to do is annoy or upset you on this.
 
Arc7Kuroi said:
Here’s an article on sample sizes and why small sample sizes being used to represent an entire population is more often incorrect and a misrepresentation of data: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6970301/

You cannot claim that “these 10 sea kings have similar speeds therefore this other sea king must have that similar speed”. You are using an extremely small sample size to represent an entire population, there are plenty of scientific papers proving that to be unethical and wrong in terms of representing a population.
Click to expand...
Damage3245 said:
@KingTempest; We're not trying to piss you off. I'll step away from the thread for an hour or so.
Click to expand...
I'm about to leave for work soon so get all your arguments out.
Damage3245 said:
We're just explaining the issues as they appear to us. I know that your calculation is for what you see as the average Sea King, but I don't think it works out as simply as you're putting it.
Click to expand...
Let me explain the calculation here since yall just refuse to read it for yourselves to the point of where you're even getting the wrong feat.

The calculation is a calc of the average sea king.

The average sea king is a serpentine creature relative to an eel in shape, except exponentially larger.

So what I did was find the mass of a serpentine creature relative to an eel in shape (the average).
An example of this is if I want to measure the attributes of the average human. I won't go to an obese or an anorexic, I would go to a human with relatively average qualities, height, mass, strength, etc. 1.70 meters, 62 kg, something around the average.

And I'm at the point where I'm tired of hearing "wiki standards" when we do this same thing.
Someone breaking a door or getting hit by a car or freefalling or breaking somebody's bones is assumed to use the average human dimensions and qualities, and we use this for every single human on this wiki. "Got hit by a car, broke somebody's beck, vaporized a person, froze a person, could withstand lava", we give them the yield, dura, speed.
Yes, speed, we do this for speed. We do that on this wiki, all over.

So please, stop shoving the wiki's rules down my throat when a majority of the wiki uses these same things.

So now next is the speed.

Instead of me using a sample of Usain Bolt or something, I found something relative to my sample.

I found another serpentine sea king without outlandish qualities like orbiting wool on their necks or a ******* frog sea king, just a regular snake.

I then assumed the absolute lowest average value, as it said "at least 5km", so I used 5km.

@Arc7Kuroi, you keep bringing up sample size as if I calculated the average of a bunch of different people.

When we see a large number of a group moving at the same speed with varying qualities (all different lengths, widths, heights, masses, shapes), then we can make a logical assumption that it would remain the same for something that is even more average for their species.

If I look at Usain Bolt, the Rock, Zendaya, Michael B Jordan, Michael Rainey Jr, Mark Henry, Yohan Blake, Big Show, Beyonce, Snoop Dog, Michael Jordan, Shaq, and many more people and I see that somehow they're around the same speed, then I can look at another average person of their species (like Tom Holland, 5'8, 64 kg) and assume that he would be in the average of that group as well.

Yall are just being hyper critical against safe assumptions. I didn't calculate the fastest or most outlandish sea king that looks like a blowfish (like damage tried to say the one T Bone cut was) and say that's the average. The average sea king is a serpentine creature, so using another average sea king for an assumption of speed is not
  1. Calc Stacking
  2. A Non Average
  3. Against the Rules

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably can be treated like a duck instead of acting as if it's a brick or a boulder.

Or else, let's go shit on every single profile and common calculation that uses the average of anything
 
KingTempest said:
@Arc7Kuroi, you keep bringing up sample size as if I calculated the average of a bunch of different people.

When we see a large number of a group moving at the same speed with varying qualities (all different lengths, widths, heights, masses, shapes), then we can make a logical assumption that it would remain the same for something that is even more average for their species.

If I look at Usain Bolt, the Rock, Zendaya, Michael B Jordan, Michael Rainey Jr, Mark Henry, Yohan Blake, Big Show, Beyonce, Snoop Dog, Michael Jordan, Shaq, and many more people and I see that somehow they're around the same speed, then I can look at another average person of their species (like Tom Holland, 5'8, 64 kg) and assume that he would be in the average of that group as well.

Yall are just being hyper critical against safe assumptions. I didn't calculate the fastest or most outlandish sea king that looks like a blowfish (like damage tried to say the one T Bone cut was) and say that's the average. The average sea king is a serpentine creature, so using another average sea king for an assumption of speed is not
  1. Calc Stacking
  2. A Non Average
  3. Against the Rules

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably can be treated like a duck instead of acting as if it's a brick or a boulder.

Or else, let's go shit on every single profile and common calculation that uses the average of anything
Click to expand...
Still no, you absolutely CANNOT take a tiny sample size of 10 individuals of a population and equate them to the entire population. That isn’t debatable, it’s scientifically incorrect, I can keep citing papers and papers.

It’s not up for debate, you cannot use a tiny sample size to represent the entire population. It doesn’t matter if that sample size is all the same speed or all different speeds. That doesn’t address the issue that you are misrepresenting a population with an extremely tiny sample size.

The issue is not about the sample size’s speed, it’s about using a tiny sample size to substantiate your claim that all sea kings can move at that speed of the sample size. You haven’t addressed the issue. You keep repeating ad nauseam that because your tiny sample size all moves at the same speed it can be applied to the entire population. It objectively cannot, that is horrendously poor statistics.
 
Gotcha. Currently compiling some arguments so it can be addressed all at once instead of being drawn out. Don't know if I'll be able to post it tonight but will do if I have time.
 
The Battleship calc affects all the Post-TS scaling that isn't God-Tier so dealing with it is a must.
 
Apologies for the delay, I'll be able to make a response to this thread in a couple hours when I'm free.
 
Since the meteor was still ablated, heavily ablated in fact (leaving a trail even when redirected), I'll use the high end speed of ablated meteors, 4km/s.
Click to expand...

The meteor was 'heavily ablated' at it has been heated up from its previous velocity prior to redirection. Even if the meteor can reasonably be assumed to have decelerated significantly as a result of Law changing its direction, there isn't a large enough span of time for it to cool down and lose it trail even if it had been slowed down to below abalation speeds.

A quick demonstration so that you don't have to take just my word for it.

Within the confines of Law's Room, let us say the meteor travelled a distance roughly four times its own diameter. Assuming it instaneously switched from a speed of 673 km/s to 4 km/s from the moment it entered Law's room, that still means that the timeframe for it to cover that distance and slam into the hull of the ship was 425.6 m / 4 km/s = 0.1064 seconds. Bear in mind this is actually a big high ball for the timeframe as it assumes that the meteor instantly decelerated and lost most of its speed; if the meteor uniformly decelerated then the timeframe becomes many times shorter and briefer.

A mere tenth of a second (or far less) isn't enough time for it to lose its heat or ablation trail, so the first assumption of the calc; that the meteor showed signs of ablation and therefore it can be assumed that it must be moving at abalated meteor speed isn't a solid foundation for the calc. In other words, if the meteor's speed post-redirection can't be safely assumed, then its kinetic energy is not reliable or useful to us. To assume that the meteor was reduced to just abalation speeds by the time it hits the Marine Battleship is too speculative.

In addition to this, even if we took the signs of abalation as an indicator for the meteor's reduced speed, the value for 4 km/s would be a high end value for the calc. A low end for abalation speed which would be 2 km/s would be a safer assumption to use as the speed value for the meteor.

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.
Click to expand...

Little Oars Jr. is in the epicenter of the Ursa Shock, and unfortunately for him he has a far larger surface area than the Straw Hats such as Sanji and Zoro. Even his sword has a vast surface area considering its size, and it's not just the energy that his the ends of Oars' sword that we have to be concerned about, but the total amount of energy hitting him and his blade (though as far as I'm aware, his sword doesn't have a specific durability rating - after all Oars' durability doesn't tell us his sword's durability).

Due to the nature of the attack being an omnidirectional shockwave, it is impossible for both Sanji and Zoro to scale to the full potency of the Ursa Shock unless it was hitting them point-blank, and never mind the rest of the Straw Hats and Lola's pirate crew who were also hit and experienced a fraction of the total energy of the shockwave too.

So even if the meteor calculation was valid to use here, the Straw Hats (including Zoro and Sanji) should not be scaling to it as simply as A = B = C.
 
Damage3245 said:
The meteor was 'heavily ablated' at it has been heated up from its previous velocity prior to redirection. Even if the meteor can reasonably be assumed to have decelerated significantly as a result of Law changing its direction, there isn't a large enough span of time for it to cool down and lose it trail even if it had been slowed down to below abalation speeds.

A quick demonstration so that you don't have to take just my word for it.

Within the confines of Law's Room, let us say the meteor travelled a distance roughly four times its own diameter. Assuming it instaneously switched from a speed of 673 km/s to 4 km/s from the moment it entered Law's room, that still means that the timeframe for it to cover that distance and slam into the hull of the ship was 425.6 m / 4 km/s = 0.1064 seconds. Bear in mind this is actually a big high ball for the timeframe as it assumes that the meteor instantly decelerated and lost most of its speed; if the meteor uniformly decelerated then the timeframe becomes many times shorter and briefer.

A mere tenth of a second (or far less) isn't enough time for it to lose its heat or ablation trail, so the first assumption of the calc; that the meteor showed signs of ablation and therefore it can be assumed that it must be moving at abalated meteor speed isn't a solid foundation for the calc. In other words, if the meteor's speed post-redirection can't be safely assumed, then its kinetic energy is not reliable or useful to us. To assume that the meteor was reduced to just abalation speeds by the time it hits the Marine Battleship is too speculative.

In addition to this, even if we took the signs of abalation as an indicator for the meteor's reduced speed, the value for 4 km/s would be a high end value for the calc. A low end for abalation speed which would be 2 km/s would be a safer assumption to use as the speed value for the meteor.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is something that’s been on my mind as well. I’d be curious to see if there’s any scientific evidence that could help us better quantify a speed. Assuming ablation speeds because it’s still on fire is a bit murky, especially if it was previously ablated and the speed/direction change occurred in a tenth of a second or less. I’m neutral on solutions, I’d be curious to see if anyone can find any information to make the situation more clear. But worst case scenario, moving to a safer 2 km/s doesn’t seem like an awful suggestion, given the aforementioned info.
 
Damage has brought up seemingly valid contentions with the battleship/meteor calc, and such i'm currently agreeing with his assessment until OP supporters can counter his arguments above.

Though i do have a question for @Damage3245, do you believe the calc is still usable if we assume the lower end ablation speed compared to the current value we assume? or do you believe the calc is too assumptive in the first place and such shouldn't be used, even if we assume the lower value?
 
@Deceived; my stance is that the calc is too assumptive to be used in the first place, but even if that wasn't the case, it should still preferably be using the lower value.
 
If Damage is right (I'm staying neutral for now until King responds), then it'd just cut all the values in the new scaling list by 4 since the velocity was halved.
 
Me when I get done with the Post-Timeskip scaling list after new revisions are made:

Shivani on Twitter: When you finally find out the HD format of a meme template: https://t.co/aUO8Q7NiRa / Twitter




@KingTempest and/or @Damage3245 with the revisions/calcs that require an entire new scaling list and hours of my life to make edits for:
Best Kai Green GIFs | Gfycat
 
There's also the anime to check it if you want. The meteorite doesn't seem to deaccelerate when Law redirects it, it just does a U turn into the ship in the anime and keeps the same speed it was falling at. No clue if that counts as cinematic timeframe shenanigans or something.
Considering the DF works by manipulating space itself idk why it would alter the speed of something instead of just bending its physics to alter its direction.
 
Let's see what King has to say, and if both calcs are indeed refuted then I already have made the scaling chain to use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ryuga21
Gear 5th Luffy: Time-Stop ability addition.
Replies
17
Views
1K
SirAlex09
SirAlex09
Kachon123
  • Locked
One Piece: New World Upgrade
Replies
13
Views
2K
Kachon123
Kachon123
That_moron2
Boa Hancock Downgrade
2 3
Replies
94
Views
4K
That_moron2
That_moron2
Kachon123
  • Locked
One Piece: Dressrosa Calc Additions
Replies
26
Views
2K
KingTempest
KingTempest
GZ2022
Massive HoYoverse Revision and Possible Upgrades: Make Honkai Impact Great Again!
Replies
25
Views
3K
Cimafranca133
Cimafranca133
Back
Top