• 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-Punch Man: Garou and Saitama Graph Discussion (Cleaned and Continued)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kachon123

Kachon123

17,968
15,609
This Calc Group Thread is a new version of this thread that was discontinued due to it being cluttered.


The discussion is based on chapter 168 of One-Punch Man, where Saitama and Garou's growth was plotted on a graph and stated to be rising exponentially. @Qawsedf234 has calculated the graph, which has been evaluated and accepted:

vsbattles.fandom.com

One Punch Man - That one power graph

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com



Transferring the votes from the original thread:
Bold = Staff Opinion

Agree: 24 (4;20): @Tago238, @KLOL506 , @ZillertheBucko, @Kachon123, @RethPo, @Phoenks , @Dread, @Maitreya, @Dienomite22, @CrimsonStarFallen, @Antvasima, @Ultima_Reality , @IRizz21, @Tamasensei123, @GilverTheProtoAngelo, @MARVEL_Future_Fight_Gamer, @Quangotjokes, @IllustriouS44, @Tural2004, @Bernkastelll, @Franako, @Loki, @Spinoirr, @D4yN4m0N

Neutral: 5 (3;2): @Qawsedf234, @Damage3245, @LordTracer, @Chariot190, @Cimafranca133

Possibly: 4 (4;0): @Ayewale, @Kin201, @Quantu, @Whiz_Almighty

Disagree: 14 (5;9): @DontTalkDT, @Matthew_Schroeder, @Aachintya31, @Lightning_XXI, @HammerStrikes219, @Agnaa , @BOEGVELD, @Jasonsith, @GodlyCharmander, @Andytrenom, @Pain_to12, @Maverick_Zero_X, @Yar_R_agi_7k, @FinePoint


Anyone and everyone (other than those thread banned of course) are welcome to vote and give your opinions and vote.
 
Last edited:
I'd also point out that Phoenks is only staff for the FC/OC wiki, not vsbw, so they probably shouldn't count as staff for the purposes of this thread's vote tally.
 
Kachon123 said:
This Calc Group Thread is a new version of this thread that was discontinued due to it being cluttered.


The discussion is based on chapter 168 of One-Punch Man, where Saitama and Garou's growth was plotted on a graph and stated to be rising exponentially. @Qawsedf234 has calculated the graph, which has been evaluated and accepted:

vsbattles.fandom.com

One Punch Man - That one power graph

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com



Transferring the votes from the original thread:
Bold = Staff Opinion

Agree: 16 (4;12): @Tago238, @KLOL506 , @ZillertheBucko, @Kachon123, @RethPo, @Phoenks , @Dread, @Maitreya, @Dienomite22, @Ayewale, @CrimsonStarFallen, @Antvasima, @Ultima_Reality , @IRizz21, @Tamasensei123, @GilverTheProtoAngelo

Neutral: 5 (4;1): @Quantu, @Qawsedf234, @Damage3245, @Maverick_Zero_X, @LordTracer

Disagree: 11 (3;8): @DontTalkDT, @Matthew_Schroeder, @Aachintya31, @HammerStrikes219, @Agnaa, @BOEGVELD, @Jasonsith, @GodlyCharmander, @Andytrenom


Anyone and everyone (other than those thread banned of course) are welcome to vote and give your opinions and vote.
Click to expand...
Quick request, would you mind adding “possibly rating” as an emphasized point in the OP, I feel it is going to be a necessary step going forward
 
Kachon123 said:
Sure. Do you know anyone who has voted for possibly?
Click to expand...
Technically anybody who agrees with it already should automatically be added as agreeing for a possibly rating, since there’s a 0% chance a solid rating goes through regardless of what people want to believe
but since the goalpost has been shifted, it would allow more people from the disagreeing side to be ok with it
but just adding it and waiting for people to vote or change votes more is fine
 
He introducing my problems in a very summarized way.
  • Unless we can figure out where the y axis start in value, we cannot figure out the rate of growth, making the multiplier impossible to gauge
  • The graph has a narrative purpose to ease the understanding of Saitama's ability to grow while he fights, it has no probable mathematical purpose.
  • One can assume the y starts at "sp^2" value in Joules, but then the initial point, used as a reference, cannot be measured, barricading a rate of growth as well.
  • The lack of units of the graph is an indicative that the graph isn't meant to be meaningful statistically, and only serves to give visual context. It serves it's purpose.

Thus, I don't only disagree with this, I find it utterly impossible to be measured, or used. That is my take in a nutshell.
 
Anyways my current main argument in favor of the graph, is the existence of the first dot relative to the graph. Assuming that the origin starts at something other than y=0, it would be a pointless detail to include the gap between the sp^2 and the bottom line, but its existence is what allows the pixel scaling and calc process to be possible in the first place. Considering that, it also basically covers author’s intent for it to be an accurate graph for it being a multiplier, as the existence of the gap would be pointless to include if not specifically for that, and it existing means that it’s more so seeming to lean on the side that murata intended for it to be a multiplier.
 
GodlyCharmander said:
He introducing my problems in a very summarized way.
  • Unless we can figure out where the y axis start in value, we cannot figure out the rate of growth, making the multiplier impossible to gauge
  • The graph has a narrative purpose to ease the understanding of Saitama's ability to grow while he fights, it has no probable mathematical purpose.
  • One can assume the y starts at "sp^2" value in Joules, but then the initial point, used as a reference, cannot be measured, barricading a rate of growth as well.
  • The lack of units of the graph is an indicative that the graph isn't meant to be meaningful statistically, and only serves to give visual context. It serves it's purpose.

Thus, I don't only disagree with this, I find it utterly impossible to be measured, or used. That is my take in a nutshell.
Click to expand...
Oh and as for the lack of units something I hadn’t brought up really last time was the fact that the writer wouldn’t know the joule value or any kind of measurement of the sp^2. All that’s pretty much objectively given is the fact that 1/4 of a square is around an sp^2, which is actually all that’s needed for the calc. It would be much preferable to the wrong numbers being used and leading to a downgrade or something cause he made the joules too low. They could have done a bit more sure, but the idea is that I’m arguing that what we have is more than enough to know what they were going for
 
ZillertheBucko said:
Anyways my current main argument in favor of the graph, is the existence of the first dot relative to the graph. Assuming that the origin starts at something other than y=0, it would be a pointless detail to include the gap between the sp^2 and the bottom line, but its existence is what allows the pixel scaling and calc process to be possible in the first place. Considering that, it also basically covers author’s intent for it to be an accurate graph for it being a multiplier, as the existence of the gap would be pointless to include if not specifically for that, and it existing means that it’s more so seeming to lean on the side that murata intended for it to be a multiplier.
Click to expand...
I get how small of a detail the gap seems like yes, I’m fully aware that I’m arguing off of a pizza crust’s worth of evidence, but as long as there’s no proper explanation for it, I am going to continue agreeing that Saitama is possibly 3-C by the end of the fight
 
ZillertheBucko said:
Oh and as for the lack of units something I hadn’t brought up really last time was the fact that the writer wouldn’t know the joule value or any kind of measurement of the sp^2. All that’s pretty much objectively given is the fact that 1/4 of a square is around an sp^2,
Click to expand...
Author doesn't need to give us the specific joule value of the feat, just putting generic units on the y axis such as 0 and 1 would've done the trick because then we'd have a scale. He doesn't, thus it's not likely to be the intention.
ZillertheBucko said:
which is actually all that’s needed for the calc.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. You do need a starting point.
 
GodlyCharmander said:
Author doesn't need to give us the specific joule value of the feat, just putting generic units on the y axis such as 0 and 1 would've done the trick because then we'd have a scale. He doesn't, thus it's not likely to be the intention.
Click to expand...
Very much possible that they’d assume that we’d assume that it started at zero, given the fact that the axis are highlighted, which is a detail that is usually not present when starting above zero. Realistically if they wanted to create a graph without having a defined y or x axis starting point, then they would’ve just put it without having the lines not touching the bottom, and without having the highlighted lines to begin with
because as it stands, if it’s not zero then those lines and that gap would have no purpose other than throwing off the reader
 
Kachon123 said:
This Calc Group Thread is a new version of this thread that was discontinued due to it being cluttered.


The discussion is based on chapter 168 of One-Punch Man, where Saitama and Garou's growth was plotted on a graph and stated to be rising exponentially. @Qawsedf234 has calculated the graph, which has been evaluated and accepted:

vsbattles.fandom.com

One Punch Man - That one power graph

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com



Transferring the votes from the original thread:
Bold = Staff Opinion

Agree: 19 (4;15): @Tago238, @KLOL506 , @ZillertheBucko, @Kachon123, @RethPo, @Phoenks , @Dread, @Maitreya, @Dienomite22, @Ayewale, @CrimsonStarFallen, @Antvasima, @Ultima_Reality , @IRizz21, @Tamasensei123, @GilverTheProtoAngelo, @MARVEL_Future_Fight_Gamer, @Quangotjokes, @IllustriouS44

Neutral: 5 (4;1): @Quantu, @Qawsedf234, @Damage3245, @Maverick_Zero_X, @LordTracer

Possibly:

Disagree: 12 (3;9): @DontTalkDT, @Matthew_Schroeder, @Aachintya31, @Lightning_XXI, @HammerStrikes219, @Agnaa, @BOEGVELD, @Jasonsith, @GodlyCharmander, @Andytrenom


Anyone and everyone (other than those thread banned of course) are welcome to vote and give your opinions and vote.
Click to expand...

I did not agree. Unless agreeing is "I agree it should not be used".
 
Kachon123 said:
Sure. Do you know anyone who has voted for possibly?
Click to expand...
I think I was the one who suggested the possibly rating at first.

Editing: The voting in general seems a little weird but honestly given how cluttered the last thread was I don't blame you. Hopefully every highlighted comes back to make their vote clear.
 
Last edited:
ZillertheBucko said:
Very much possible that they’d assume that we’d assume that it started at zero, given the fact that the axis are highlighted, which is a detail that is usually not present when starting above zero. Realistically if they wanted to create a graph without having a defined y or x axis starting point, then they would’ve just put it without having the lines not touching the bottom, and without having the highlighted lines to begin with.
Click to expand...
highlighted?
It's just two lines showing a graph. That's how graphs work.
ZillertheBucko said:
because as it stands, if it’s not zero then those lines and that gap would have no purpose other than throwing off the reader
Click to expand...
I believe my first comment responds this. It does not need a purpose in a sense of statistics.
 
GodlyCharmander said:
highlighted?
It's just two lines showing a graph. That's how graphs work.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not quite so simple. Similarly to the gap, the lines defining the graph are another one of these telltale signs that the author intended it to start at 0. If the goal was just making an exponential graph which shows the gap between garou and Saitama, then based on your belief you could remove the highlighted white lines and it would have the exact same effect, as just a couple of lines floating in some mystery frame of y values on a graph would communicate the same thing. But they are there, so once again it would have to assume that the authors made multiple intentional features of the graph, for no reason. Or alternatively, multiple features of the graph actually make sense and have s purpose when agreeing, since the gap and axis are what the pixel scaling are based on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Phoenks
  • Locked
The OPM Power Graph
2 3
Replies
82
Views
7K
Phoenks
Phoenks
Phoenks
One-Punch Man: Faster and Stronger!
2
Replies
67
Views
8K
SatellaTheWoE
SatellaTheWoE
Shadow_x007x
  • Locked
Adjusted Tier Boros and Saitama
Replies
5
Views
1K
Shadow_x007x
Shadow_x007x
HammerStrikes219
  • Locked
Yes, it is the Power Graph chart calculation
13 14 15
Replies
574
Views
24K
Kachon123
Kachon123
Phoenks
  • Locked
"Possibly" 3-C Saitama
2 3 4
Replies
149
Views
13K
Phoenks
Phoenks
Back
Top