• 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.
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I personally think it's iffy to assume Saitama is still growing exponentially. In fact, I recall Saitama's own statements is not that he gets any stronger, but only that he already has strength that great but never uses it. Garou on the other hand does have an accelerated development who gets stronger, and I do think that not even the 4-A destruction feat is the pinnacle of Saitama's power and could be much higher; similar to the Boros point where even if he said he was serious, we wasn't actually close to being one.

I think simply giving Saitama the At least 4-A seems like a reasonable approach until there's more of an actual demonstration of a tier specific much higher.
Click to expand...
Uh you should read through the original thread
also in chapter 168 it’s also quite directly stated that there’s exponential growth, as well as shown on the graph
 
Yes. While I don't want to use the graph, we shouldn't spread misinformation.
Saitama was stated directly to have always been passively growing.
The recent events simply made it faster and noticeable.
 
FinePoint said:
Yes.
It did not convince me, my apologies.
Click to expand...
I apologize as well, for being unclear
cause people usually do the thing where they like, reply to the post and then break down why they oppose it, since that usually makes it easier to like discuss it, so… I guess I should have started with asking that
anyways, on the point of how the highlighted lines would be a pointless detail on a graph that didn’t start at zero, as well as the gap between the sp^2 and the x axis, would you have any counter point as to why details like that would exist?
 
ZillertheBucko said:
I apologize as well, for being unclear
cause people usually do the thing where they like, reply to the post and then break down why they oppose it, since that usually makes it easier to like discuss it, so… I guess I should have started with asking that
anyways, on the point of how the highlighted lines would be a pointless detail on a graph that didn’t start at zero, as well as the gap between the sp^2 and the x axis, would you have any counter point as to why details like that would exist?
Click to expand...
Well, logically a graph like this would not start at zero. I don't think that Murata/ONE recognizing that automatically implies that it's supposed to be a perfectly accurate and to-scale mathematical diagram. Lines are extremely common on graphs, and so it probably felt natural to include those too.
 
FinePoint said:
Well, logically a graph like this would not start at zero. I don't think that Murata/ONE recognizing that automatically implies that it's supposed to be a perfectly accurate and to-scale mathematical diagram.
Click to expand...
And why wouldn’t it? The fact that they would do something like leaving a gap there to avoid it starting at zero, would imply that the x axis is y=0, would it not? So I do think that recognizing that it wouldn’t start at zero, and then making it not start at the x intercept is an indication of the x axis being y=0.
FinePoint said:
Lines are extremely common on graphs, and so it probably felt natural to include those too.
Click to expand...
Yes, you’re right. But the only reason they would be natural is due to the idea of the x axis being y = 0 to begin with, in fact the entire idea of an X intercept is that it’s when y = 0. If the lines felt natural to put, then most likely they weren’t deliberately making it not be 0.
 
Of course this is still from the perspective of a possibly rating, since maybe the author just made the graph look weird by accident and didn’t intend for it to be the way I’m interpreting it, but the details can’t really be ignored here, especially not to the point of disagreeing with the possibility as a whole
 
ZillertheBucko said:
And why wouldn’t it? The fact that they would do something like leaving a gap there to avoid it starting at zero, would imply that the x axis is y=0, would it not? So I do think that recognizing that it wouldn’t start at zero, and then making it not start at the x intercept is an indication of the x axis being y=0.

Yes, you’re right. But the only reason they would be natural is due to the idea of the x axis being y = 0 to begin with, in fact the entire idea of an X intercept is that it’s when y = 0. If the lines felt natural to put, then most likely they weren’t deliberately making it not be 0.
Click to expand...
So uh
does anybody have some input
 
Agnaa said:
They can't be too badly justified if some people still believe it after extensive discussion.
Click to expand...
Well, I still think that it seems uncontroversial to divide Saitama's maximum y-axis value with his lowest value, and then multiply the 4-A feat's energy output with that.
Agnaa said:
Speaking of which, I should probably ping @Antvasima too; he might have ideas on how to resolve a split thread like this.
Click to expand...
We need a clear staff consensus, so we cannot apply this revision even though I would personally prefer if we do.

However, maybe our staff members would be more willing to apply Medeus' "At least 4-A" suggestion?
 
Antvasima said:
Well, I still think that it seems uncontroversial to divide Saitama's maximum y-axis value with his lowest value, and then multiply the 4-A feat's energy output with that.

We need a clear staff consensus, so we cannot apply this revision even though I would personally prefer if we do.

However, maybe our staff members would be more willing to apply Medeus' "At least 4-A" suggestion?
Click to expand...
I’m unsure if medeus has actually read the chapter or the original crt since they didn’t seem to know about the statement of Saitama’s exponential growth
 
Well, I am just saying that it would be better than nothing to go from 4-A to "At least 4-A".
 
fwiw, I'm on the disagree side, and would be happy with "At least 4-A" or "4-A, far higher with Accelerated Development".
 
The idea that the gap implies y=0? I remember that being brought up in the last thread, but I can chuck out my response again. That's still a pretty reasonable thing to do for a graph that doesn't start at y=0 if it wasn't in exponential growth for a long time beforehand (which is what we'd expect if, as people are arguing, the serious punch^2 happened before any exponential growth occurred). Like, before growth starts it'd just be a flat line, so the y axis' origin could just be a tad below Saitama's ordinary baseline.
 
Ziller, I will have to ask you to stop interrogating every single disagreeing vote like they're actively ignoring you. It might be crazy, but people can see your point, go, "yeah, no." and disagree without batting an eye.

All this questioning is very pointless and will needlessly increase the length of the thread once again. I cannot give you a formal warning as a regular member, so if any staff share the same sentiment, please do inform them that they shouldn't be extending this.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, I still think that it seems uncontroversial to divide Saitama's maximum y-axis value with his lowest value, and then multiply the 4-A feat's energy output with that.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, then I'd be more inclined to use it. Even if it would only be for like, Parallel Timeline Saitama only or something.
 
Agnaa said:
The idea that the gap implies y=0? I remember that being brought up in the last thread, but I can chuck out my response again. That's still a pretty reasonable thing to do for a graph that doesn't start at y=0 if it wasn't in exponential growth for a long time beforehand (which is what we'd expect if, as people are arguing, the serious punch^2 happened before any exponential growth occurred). Like, before growth starts it'd just be a flat line, so the y axis' origin could just be a tad below Saitama's ordinary baseline.
Click to expand...
The most likely timeframe for the growth is between genos's death and the moment saitama stated to go full power after landing on io, which was an extremely short period of time, so I don't really see this as what really happened, when the exponential growth must have probably occured a very short time beforehand at best. And for a timeframe that small it really wouldn't matter. Also, even if the exponential growth graph only started in the few panels garou talked about then it wouldn't really matter, since using any given moment as x=0, saitama would have grew 58 times stronger than that.
Also the additional point goes like this: The very fact that there are X and Y axis lines highlighted is another example of a detail that wouldn't need to exist if it wasn't a graph made for a multiplier. Think of it this way
assuming the only purpose of the graph was to show the fact that there's exponential growth, as well as showing how garou is lagging behind, then you could get rid of the axis lines and it would communicate the exact same thing, in fact, you could even get rid of all the squares, as if it weren't a multiplier then it would just be unnecessary extra work to add them. The 2 curved lines by themself already show that they're growing exponentially and that Garou can't keep up as the gap between them widens. But the author intentionally added 3 extra details (the axis, gap, and the square units) which only would serve the purpose of adding a multiplier. Still arguing for the possibly rating regardless, but what matters here is that it would be unnecessary and odd for these things to be present, especially all at once, unless the graph was indeed a x58 multiplier
GodlyCharmander said:
Ziller, I will have to ask you to stop interrogating every single disagreeing vote like they're actively ignoring you. It might be crazy, but people can see your point, go, "yeah, no." and disagree without batting an eye.

All this questioning is very pointless and will needlessly increase the length of the thread once again. I cannot give you a formal warning as a regular member, so if any staff share the same sentiment, please do inform them that they shouldn't be extending this.
Click to expand...
Maybe I was wrong about people ignoring me, but I still find it to be a very ineffective way of voting on a crt without giving reasoning. People not elaborating on things makes it essentially impossible to actually analyze their thought process, which makes it way too easy for people who don't actually know what's going on with the thread to contribute to it. People could have missed panels from the manga, or maybe they just didn't see reasoning earlier in the thread that could have convinced them, but there's no way to know that with people not saying anything other than "I disagree". I would also expect the opposition to do the same, as I have been making an attempt to fully explain every detail of my argument with every post I make, which is why I was getting frustrated with the constant fra trains.
That being said, it is a common behavior, and it would be unreasonable of me to assume that everybody had the same thought process I had here, so it wasn't really right to get annoyed at people doing so, therfore, I'm sorry for harassing people about their votes. Still, I would like everybody to explain their own individual reasoning, as I find "fra" to be poor practice, usually regardless of how much people may agree or disagree with the thread.
 
Also, even if the exponential growth graph only started in the few panels garou talked about then it wouldn't really matter

Yeah, it doesn't really matter for my point either, as long as the exponential growth only occurred in that chart, and not beforehand.

assuming the only purpose of the graph was to show the fact that there's exponential growth, as well as showing how garou is lagging behind, then you could get rid of the axis lines and it would communicate the exact same thing, in fact, you could even get rid of all the squares, as if it weren't a multiplier then it would just be unnecessary extra work to add them. The 2 curved lines by themself already show that they're growing exponentially and that Garou can't keep up as the gap between them widens. But the author intentionally added 3 extra details (the axis, gap, and the square units) which only would serve the purpose of adding a multiplier. Still arguing for the possibly rating regardless, but what matters here is that it would be unnecessary and odd for these things to be present, especially all at once, unless the graph was indeed a x58 multiplier

This feels like a bit of a reach, especially the part about that squares. That adds nothing to quantifying a multiplier, it just makes it look more like a graph.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
If that's the case, then I'd be more inclined to use it. Even if it would only be for like, Parallel Timeline Saitama only or something.
Click to expand...
yeah, only parallel saitama key would start as 3-C in vs threads since he's the one who had the multiplier during the fight
also the dividing method would grant the same value that you caled if I'm not mistaken, the issue that people currently take is that there's no direct confirmation that the x axis line actually starts at y=0, so that if it started at like 50 squares, then the difference between y=50.25 (first point) and 66 squares (last point) it wouldn't be a 58 times multiplier, even with the linear increase
although I explain my reasoning above for why I don't think this is the case
 
Agnaa said:
assuming the only purpose of the graph was to show the fact that there's exponential growth, as well as showing how garou is lagging behind, then you could get rid of the axis lines and it would communicate the exact same thing, in fact, you could even get rid of all the squares, as if it weren't a multiplier then it would just be unnecessary extra work to add them. The 2 curved lines by themself already show that they're growing exponentially and that Garou can't keep up as the gap between them widens. But the author intentionally added 3 extra details (the axis, gap, and the square units) which only would serve the purpose of adding a multiplier. Still arguing for the possibly rating regardless, but what matters here is that it would be unnecessary and odd for these things to be present, especially all at once, unless the graph was indeed a x58 multiplier

This feels like a bit of a reach, especially the part about that squares. That adds nothing to quantifying a multiplier, it just makes it look more like a graph.
Click to expand...
the squares aren't as important actually, given that we just use pixel scaling anyways, may have gotten a bit too excited for coming up with new points there (3 is a more aesthetically appealing number than 2)

regardless, even if it does seem like a reach, I don't really see any other explanation for these details, which is why I assert it as a possibility, although it's not really an unbreakable justification for it to just be objectively 3-C. From what I understand, possibly rating allow people to choose between 2 valid interpretations of a character's tier or scaling and use it for a vs thread, like the equivalent of "this character would win if you believed X scaling for them is true, but if you go with the lowball then the other character takes this"

As for my counterargument here: axis are essentially always meant to represent some important part of a graph, perhaps instead of y=0 the x axis could be like 10, if say, the math problem were "if you're at a party with 10 kids and each one needs at least one cookie" then the x intercept would represent when everybody gets one cookie, it'd be a point of significance in that case. But let's say there is no party, there are no cookies, and you have no units, why would it need to start at 10 then, it wouldn't have a reason. Get what I mean here? I'd say that a proper graph's x axis y value always has some kind of significance, but in this case, since there are not and units there's no real significance it could have, unless it were 0, in which case 0 would always be quantifiable even without units, as something times 0 is 0, and in this case it's the equivalent of a math problem where you need to find where any given point's y value is doubled, in which case the x axis actually does have a meaning, for the sake of the multiplier. Without that it's a pointless detail, and sure, it possible that the author may have done something completely pointless because they thought it was proper, but it's a good chance that the author's deliberate choice here, assuming they thought through its implications, was to represent the bottom line as y = 0
 
I don't like repeating myself, but it's probably the first time this thread. The default position of y=0 is only the case when the graph looks nice with y at 0. If it doesn't, if that makes things unclear, then y will be whatever number makes it look good. Hell, a lot of graphing tools will automatically select non-zero origins for this reason.
 
Agnaa said:
I don't like repeating myself, but it's probably the first time this thread. The default position of y=0 is only the case when the graph looks nice with y at 0. If it doesn't, if that makes things unclear, then y will be whatever number makes it look good. Hell, a lot of graphing tools will automatically select non-zero origins for this reason.
Click to expand...
I don't see what looking nice matters, since there are no units it really can't even "look nice"
and it would still have no utility to have the axis be anything other than y=0
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Phoenks
  • Locked
The OPM Power Graph
2 3
Replies
82
Views
8K
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
14K
Phoenks
Phoenks
Back
Top