-
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)
- Thread starter Kachon123
- Start date
-
- Tags
- #calculation #onepunchman
- Status
- 13,900
- 5,395
Out of curiosity, what would be the multiplier would need to be to "not look nice", just wondering cause I'm guessing it would have to be like times 5 or lower? I know that different verses have different one shot thresholds, and while that may be true for the purposes of one shot scaling chains for upscaling, there's absolutely nothing there for it in a debate of author intent, when garou goes to being equal to saitama to being implied to be sneeze level within quite literally a few seconds.
Anyways, ignoring that fact, this point makes sense, but it's unrelated to the matter of the x and y axis being there in the first place, and most importantly of all the existence of the gap between sp^2 and the x axis
you're right that a graph's x-axis could start at something higher than y=0, but there's still nothing there explaining the other points I brought up regarding the graph's 2 factors that make no sense for a graph that wouldn't start at y=0, especially considering the two graphs you sent don't have the defined x axis starting point, which was one of my main points. Therfore, I am still convinced that saitama is possibly 58 times stronger at the end of the fight, as there's absolutely no real reasonable way in my eyes to interpret the author intent to be something other than the multipliers, outside of the author just making inconsistencies by accident or not really thinking about it at all.
- 15,280
- 15,446
Move me from neutral to disagree. I was already leaning towards disagreeing, but the recent discussion has made me fully disagree.
- 14,915
- 12,434
Out of curiosity, what would be the multiplier would need to be to "not look nice", just wondering cause I'm guessing it would have to be like times 5 or lower?
I think I'd say like 29x or lower. At about half its height the graph would start looking pretty uninspiring. From there, it could be arbitrarily low (but still positive).
Anyways, ignoring that fact, this point makes sense, but it's unrelated to the matter of the x and y axis being there in the first place, and most importantly of all the existence of the gap between sp^2 and the x axis
Well, yeah, I discussed those sorts of things elsewhere. The axes are there for it to look like a chart, and there's usually a gap between the origin and the lowest point y-value on a chart; starting it right at the corner doesn't look very nice unless it's pretty simple.
especially considering the two graphs you sent don't have the defined x axis starting point, which was one of my main points.
They do tho? I don't really understand this.
I think I'd say like 29x or lower. At about half its height the graph would start looking pretty uninspiring. From there, it could be arbitrarily low (but still positive).
Anyways, ignoring that fact, this point makes sense, but it's unrelated to the matter of the x and y axis being there in the first place, and most importantly of all the existence of the gap between sp^2 and the x axis
Well, yeah, I discussed those sorts of things elsewhere. The axes are there for it to look like a chart, and there's usually a gap between the origin and the lowest point y-value on a chart; starting it right at the corner doesn't look very nice unless it's pretty simple.
especially considering the two graphs you sent don't have the defined x axis starting point, which was one of my main points.
They do tho? I don't really understand this.
- 13,900
- 5,395
well I'd disagree very very heavily but I guess you could just lowball it to 29, and I can't really stop you because it's subjective
there "usually being a gap" doesn't really mean more than me saying that a graph "usually starts at y=0", I don't really think that's gonna fly, since there's still no purpose of there being a gap, when situations where there is a gap are a case by case basis, in which there are purposes (usually dictated by the units, since most graphs have units, but not this one)
and it looking nice also doesn't really apply here. While it made some sense for the previous point in which the exponential growth should be noticeable (even though it would be definitely noticeable far before something like 29 times multiplier, and I'd say it's much closer to 5 than that) here there's no actual purpose, outside of the completely subjective idea of what a good looking graph would be
and the axis being there to make it look like a chart? not entirely sure what that point means, actually, so I won't really bring that up yet
recall my previous argument, here's a quick summary
the x and y axis are highlighted to differentiate them from every other line and square on the graph, but why? If you got rid of that, it wouldn't even "look better" since you could just make the x axis start right below it without leaving the gap, or make it start 500 squares lower and it would do the same. So uh, what exactly is the point of it? If it were quite literally any other non zero value then it would be quite pointless to have any lines as the axis. Doesn't make it look better, but if it were 0 then it actually means something as a multiplier.
what I'm saying is that when there's a deliberately added detail that serves no purpose other than having the graph being a multiplier, then that's evidence that it was meant to be used as a multiplier
- 13,900
- 5,395
anyways Ill continue in the morning, so uh, to any people voting as I sleep
try and look through both sides of the argument pleaase?
try and look through both sides of the argument pleaase?
- 11,065
- 13,766
Right, I did speak to Agnaa about it in private when I was on vacation. It depends on whether you interpret the graph as being legitimately quantitative, or simply qualitative to show the nature of Saitama's exponential growth.
The lack of scale and ticks make me believe it's just for qualitative purpose. The first tick doesn't always have to equal the scale of the graph, and depending on our assumption of scale and the first y-value, the calculated multiplier can vary too much. Personally as a rule of math, I'd never try to calculate a graph without any mention of scale and the first values at axes.
The lack of scale and ticks make me believe it's just for qualitative purpose. The first tick doesn't always have to equal the scale of the graph, and depending on our assumption of scale and the first y-value, the calculated multiplier can vary too much. Personally as a rule of math, I'd never try to calculate a graph without any mention of scale and the first values at axes.
- 13,900
- 5,395
did you read the arguments from this thread or the previous one
- 2,126
- 1,725
Possibly 3-C weakens the aspect of Saitama's exponential growth by defining a specific tier to a him ,Atleast 4A sounds more fair
- 13,900
- 5,395
Firstly it would be a new key, since Future Saitama has different abilities and tier
second, this isn’t a real argument
third, you would just say he varies or is far higher with AD regardless of if he gets the 3-C rating or not
- 13,900
- 5,395
of course this thread may need to be redone a third time actually
since the OP doesn’t really include the arguments for why Saitama’s 3-C, and the proposition of the post is technically not even for the possibly rating to begin with, as well as the fact that this might as well have become a staff only thread
not to mention if the next chapter brings something to the table then of course we’ll need to get that up
since the OP doesn’t really include the arguments for why Saitama’s 3-C, and the proposition of the post is technically not even for the possibly rating to begin with, as well as the fact that this might as well have become a staff only thread
not to mention if the next chapter brings something to the table then of course we’ll need to get that up
- 14,333
- 11,348
My brother in Christ.
- 13,900
- 5,395
It’s a necessary step
- 14,772
- 20,647
We are not restarting this thread again just because the proposal is currently being outvoted.
- 13,900
- 5,395
That’s not even close to what I said.
- 32,327
- 20,215
Reading through the thread, Agnaa and AKM hyave echoed my biggest concerns from the start.
- 13,900
- 5,395
I’d still like an explanation on the 2 key points I brought up and why they wouldn’t be enough for a possibly rating
at this point I’d be willing to change my stance to disagree, if the answer was satisfying, but right now I still think 3-C is very much possible
at this point I’d be willing to change my stance to disagree, if the answer was satisfying, but right now I still think 3-C is very much possible
- 14,915
- 12,434
The OP didn't include the arguments for 3-C, but it also didn't include the arguments again. Clearly, a person who wanted their opinion would've either needed to form their own from the calc, or read arguments in one of the threads. Which shouldn't really be biased one way or the other.
- 165,237
- 72,272
Would this be more acceptable, given that my other suggestion seems to have been rejected?
- 13,900
- 5,395
I am still not ready for it to go to that yet, since there’s still a few arguments I have in favor of possibly 3-C
Usually the person making a crt includes their evidence in the original post, instead of it just being a prompt to discuss among themselves. It just makes it easier for arguments to be seen since a lot of the time people will read the OP and nothing else and form their opinions on it. I just feel it to be a better strategic choice, since at the end of the day a crt’s goal is for something to be accepted, and a well organized OP with the evidence for it is a good way to keep people caught up, and helps with people joining the thread and possibly even starting off saying outdated or debunked arguments, and then voting.
Although there’s no doubt that many people probably many people who have read the arguments, since the opposition to the crt is well informed for the most part, I could see how people would disagree. Still, I feel like to some extent my arguments aren’t being seen, or people just end up leaving a vote and abandoning the thread immediately after, which is especially frustrating when it’s several staff members doing so…
This applies to the people agreeing as well since, at this point there’s a noticeable numbers advantage in how many people agree, but I’m literally the only one who’s actually been debating in favor of it for pretty much this entire thread.
Rant over. Anyways, about this….
Thoughts?
- 13,900
- 5,395
well
part of my argument is that it doesn't effect the aesthetic of it in any way, and I made an attempt to explain why that is..
- 14,772
- 20,647
"At least 4-A" or "far higher with Accelerated Development" sounds like a fine alternative.
- 13,900
- 5,395
in other words, his AD ends up being.... nearly useless, as far as the standards are concerned, of course
anyways even if the crt does somehow get rejected (despite the clear majority vote being on agree) the correct way to do it is still giving future saitama a new key, starting at "at least 4-A, likely higher, far higher with accelerated development" since the multiplier to his 4-A value would be applied to future saitama to begin with
- 15,280
- 15,446
At least 4-A should work.
- 13,900
- 5,395
This thread hasn't even been rejected yet, the agreeing side still has much more people, especially when including those who agreed with a possibly rating, there's still plenty of people (including staff) in neutral and the vast majority of voters haven't acknowledged new discussion in the thread. In fact, there's probably tons of people who weren't pinged here and just stopped paying attention once this continuation thread was created. Right now is the worst possible time to be saying it's rejected, when considering all this.
- 14,915
- 12,434
Maverick was already against it and Tracer was neutral. @KLOL506, @CrimsonStarFallen, @Ultima_Reality, @Qawsedf234, and @Damage3245 should comment on whether they find something like "At least 4-A" or "far higher with Accelerated Development" acceptable.
- 15,280
- 15,446
I actually changed my vote to disagree earlier, the OP just hasn’t updated the votes yet.
- 29,934
- 25,092
I don't think that "far higher with Accelerated Development" is a good idea.
Just "At least 4-A, likely higher" should suffice.
Just "At least 4-A, likely higher" should suffice.
- 165,237
- 72,272
- 13,900
- 5,395
I don’t even agree with the fact that voting could start, not when there’s still a bit more debate to be had about wether it’s even correct or not
And this, this doesn’t even make any sense whatsoever how would he not get higher with AD, that’s just like saying he can’t get stronger
I’m pretty much done here since staff are pretty much the only opinions who will ever matter, the original thread was handled extremely poorly, and so much of this thread just ended up being an Fra train in the middle of active discussions in which reasons were literally changing
there’s so much wrong with how this went down but now isn’t the time for that I guess, a 3-C rating isn’t even that important for these characters anyways so whatever. By the way can the OP of this thread move my vote to the possibly rating, just in case
unfollowing, maybe
- 13,900
- 5,395
Also no disrespect intended by my criticisms, I especially appreciated how agnaa antvasima, charmander, and several others from both sides handled the thread. There are just things that I felt could have been done better in this thread in general, especially considering the rocky start of the previous thread.
- 165,237
- 72,272
Thank you. Most of us are usually trying our best under the circumstances at least.
- 19,689
- 16,059
It would be the second option in my view. There's no "At least" justification and a likely higher doesn't work with Accelerated Development.
- 14,915
- 12,434
I feel like the main arguments have already been discussed fairly thoroughly.
I'm sorry that the thread ended up leaving a bad taste in your mouth.
- 13,900
- 5,395
Meh, it’s more so that I felt I was a millimeter away from either convincing you, or you convincing me, but overall it was thorough, I was down to my last real argument basically, but I didn’t feel the final concern was resolved in the end. But up to this point your arguments were all well constructed and reasonable, and this is coming from me, who usually just leaves any thread pissed when the revision or character I was arguing in favor of doesn’t succeed lol.
So uh, this is cool actually
- 3,004
- 1,420
I'd like for the graph to be accurate and functional as evidence for 3-C Saitama and Garou (OPM god tiers vs Marvel Herald tiers ftw) but honestly I'll just defer to whichever side has the most calc group support. Register my vote accordingly.
- Status
Similar threads
