One Piece: Pica destroying the Royal Plateau Recalculation

[Damage3245]

Presently we are using this calculation by Cin for Pica's feat of going to destroy the Royal Plateau in his enormous stone golem.

M3X has recently re-calced the feat here since the scaling images are missing from the original version of the calc. (I was going to re-calc it myself sooner or later, but fortunately M3X got there ahead of me and saved me the time)

The principle differences is that M3X uses a direct scaling from the full width of Dressrosa to the width of the Royal Plateau instead of scaling the width of Dressrosa to Flower Hill and then comparing the Flower Hill to the Royal Plateau - so it cuts out an unnecessary scaling step. He also uses Fragmentation for the feat whereas the original calc uses both Fragmentation and Violent Fragmentation; but I can't find a good reason for the Violent Fragmentation end to be accepted since the exact results of the feat aren't visible. Without that, a low end evaluation of the feat seems more reasonable and Fragmentation should be used for a generic feat of Pica smashing the Royal Plateau.

This ultimately changes the results of Pica's calc from 62.1 Megatons to 1.8 Megatons. This change could affect a huge number of characters so I wanted to make a thread to ensure that the new version of the calc is more acceptable than what we're using presently (which I think it is).

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

 

[LIFE_OF_KING]

Is it serious that the 6-C rating was based only on a 7-B calculation?

 

[M3X_2.0]

Hmm, I don't think so. The 7-B value is multiplied by 16 to get 996 Megatons, and then they upscale and stack another multiplier. That's what the verse page says though. The limit is the High 7-A rating.

 

[Damage3245]

@DemonGodMitchAubin; I appreciate the funny image, but do you think that the new proposed calc is better than the other one?

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

@DemonGodMitchAubin; I appreciate the funny image, but do you think that the new proposed calc is better than the other one?

Well let's see... The original calc's links are all dead and have zero links to pixel scaling, while M3X's version has clear pixel scaling, so I have to agree with M3X's version for now because I literally can't even evaluate the original's pixel scaling

 

[Nierre]

following

 

[Kachon123]

following

 

[StrawHatArslan]

following

 

[Damage3245]

For future reference all you guys... there is a big "Follow" button at the top right of all threads. You just need to click that instead of bumping the thread.

 

[M3X_2.0]

By the way, the thread is not meant to apply only this calculation. If someone has a better version that uses the same steps as the one in the OP, sure post it here. It's just that the current one is so wrong and it miss a lot of stuff that makes almost any calc better lol

 

[Damage3245]

@Migue79, @Armorchompy, @Therefir, @Ugarik; any thoughts on the OP, please?

 

[Migue79]

I appear to have similar thoughts as Mitch on the matter atm.

 

[Therefir]

I prefer M3X's version since it has less scaling steps and actual images showing it.

 

[LIFE_OF_KING]

To be honest, we should have at least waited for the topic of WB's tsunamis to be finalized. Both things change the scale completely, two at the same time complicates what is already complicated

 

[KingTempest]

Why isn’t this using V Frag like the other one?

 

[StrawHatArslan]

Yeah, V-frag should be used

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Why isn’t this using V Frag like the other one?

This is a good question^

 

[Damage3245]

Why isn’t this using V Frag like the other one?

This is a good question^

I couldn't find a single comment on the original calc blog saying that the Violent Fragmentation end should be accepted over the Fragmentation end.

Unless there is some convincing evidence for why Violent Fragmentation would be more reasonable than Fragmentation, it seems like Fragmentation would be the safer choice for a generic destruction feat of a structure.

To be honest, we should have at least waited for the topic of WB's tsunamis to be finalized. Both things change the scale completely, two at the same time complicates what is already complicated

The two topics affect almost completely different groups of characters tbh.

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

So the 6-C levels for One Piece will disappear?

 

[Kachon123]

So the 6-C levels for One Piece will disappear?

No.

 

[Stefano4444]

So the 6-C levels for One Piece will disappear?

There are still Whitebeard and Blackbeard feats for the High/Top Tiers.

 

[Damage3245]

So the 6-C levels for One Piece will disappear?

No.

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

Alright then

 

[StrawHatArslan]

No.

How do they stay???

 

[Stefano4444]

How do they stay???

Whitebeard and Blackbeard's quake feats.

Marineford Gura Gura Feats

vsbattles.fandom.com

Primebeard's Tsunami's (I hope it's my final one)

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[StrawHatArslan]

Whitebeard and Blackbeard's quake feats.

Marineford Gura Gura Feats

vsbattles.fandom.com

Primebeard's Tsunami's (I hope it's my final one)

vsbattles.fandom.com

No, I’m talking about the 6-C ratings for luffy, kata, etc.

also those ratings might be changed as well, to probably Low 6-B or 6-B since m3x and tempest recalced them and are debating over either a 1 teraton result or a 8 teratons result

 

[Kachon123]

No, I’m talking about the 6-C ratings for luffy, kata, etc.

Those don't come from Pica. They come from Fishman Island multipliers iirc.

 

[Damage3245]

No, I’m talking about the 6-C ratings for luffy, kata, etc.

Those ratings are probably going.

Those don't come from Pica. They come from Fishman Island multipliers iirc.

Actually, they do come from Pica, so they'll be going.

But this isn't really the thread for the scaling.

 

[StrawHatArslan]

Those don't come from Pica. They come from Fishman Island multipliers iirc.

Bro, you realize hody scales to half of pica’s calc right???? 31 megatons x 32, = 994

 

[StrawHatArslan]

Also can someone @ cin Cameron, he made the other calc so he should argue why his is better

 

[Kachon123]

Actually, they do come from Pica, so they'll be going

Pica is High 7-A+?

 

[StrawHatArslan]

They’re talking about his golem calc, that’s literally what they scale off of. His physicals > Golem

 

[Damage3245]

Pica is High 7-A+?

There's a very big scaling chain at the moment that involves several multipliers and upscaling, and it is sourced at Pica's calc which is now being replaced by the new calc by M3X.

 

[Kachon123]

There's a very big scaling chain at the moment that involves several multipliers and upscaling, and it is sourced at Pica's calc which is now being replaced by the new calc by M3X.

Ok. Thank you.

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

So, the 6-C would gone or what?

 

[Damage3245]

So, the 6-C would gone or what?

Probably. We'll have to see once the ratings get updated.

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

Alright then, i'm gonna pending my Tsuna vs Zoro if that's the case

 

[KingTempest]

I couldn't find a single comment on the original calc blog saying that the Violent Fragmentation end should be accepted over the Fragmentation end.

Unless there is some convincing evidence for why Violent Fragmentation would be more reasonable than Fragmentation, it seems like Fragmentation would be the safer choice for a generic destruction feat of a structure.

"One solid punch from him could smash that entire royal plateau to rubble" never meant "fragmentation"

 

[Damage3245]

"One solid punch from him could smash that entire royal plateau to rubble" never meant "fragmentation"

Cin calced both methods, and said himself that "The Low End seems consistent with the next feat, but either of these can be used."

So Fragmentation was clearly a valid method.