• 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: High-Mid Tier Upgrades

Kachon123

Kachon123

17,946
15,575
Currently, Garou, Platinum Sperm, and Flashy Flash are rated as 7-A, based on their scaling from this calc. However, this thread proposes scaling them to the mid-end value of the feat, which has also been accepted.

The purpose of this adjustment is to showcase the progression of strength from Golden Sperm, who could partially defend against attacks from Sun Blade Atomic Samurai (High 7-A), to Platinum Sperm. Golden Sperm already scales massively above the baseline 7-A level by being able to oneshot a character who can oneshot someone who scales there.

Considering Platinum Sperm's inferior form, Golden Sperm, is already superior to the 7-A baseline of 100 Megatons and can partially block attacks from Sun Blade Atomic Samurai, it makes sense for Platinum Sperm to be placed around his level.


Profiles Affected:
Garou
Platinum Sperm
Flashy Flash
Hellfire Flame
Gale Wind
 
It doesn't make sense to change which end of the calc is used just because of other character's powerscaling.

Golden Sperm one-shotting Darkshine who can one-shot Garou has nothing to do with the calc.

400 Megatons is already 4x higher than baseline 7-A, and "one-shots" like the above don't have any set multiplier to them that would suggest Golden Sperm should High 7-A instead of 7-A.

Best I can concede on is changing them to "At least 7-A" instead of just "7-A" which should satisfy the issue is regarding them as merely being considered 7-A.
 
I have always thought that the mid-end was far more accurate than the low-end, as it uses the hollowness of the rocks after the structure has fully formed, which is what we truly care about.

Also, the low-end uses a panel where it is much more difficult to scale properly because of the lack of any significant figure.

So the mid-end is not only using the actual average amount of rocks, the measurements are better as well, there's no reason to be using the low-end over it.
 
Therefir said:
I have always thought that the mid-end was far more accurate than the low-end, as it uses the hollowness of the rocks after the structure has fully formed, which is what we truly care about.

Also, the low-end uses a panel where it is much more difficult to scale properly because of the lack of any significant figure.

So the mid-end is not only using the actual average amount of rocks, the measurements are better as well, there's no reason to be using the low-end over it.
Click to expand...
I was about to post this once I got home. Stole the words right from my mouth.
 
I mean if Refir, the guy who made the calc is saying the mid end is better and even Damage in the comments of that calc said the mid end is useable I don't see why we have to keep using the low end.
 
I don't really get OP's argument, scaling isn't really pertinent to what math is accepted. Regardless that doesn't seem to be why that's being accepted, but I actually think the currently used low end is better here. The 0.15 end is the average of the high and low end hollowness calculations, but the high end is done off a panel that's pretty small and mostly occupied by Garou. Given the method here, I think the really small sample size makes it a less reliable calculation than the low end which uses a much better panel.
 
Last edited:
Armorchompy said:
I don't really get OP's argument, scaling isn't really pertinent to what math is accepted. Regardless that doesn't seem to be why that's being accepted, but I actually think the currently used low end is better here. The 0.15 end is the average of the high and low end hollowness calculations, but the high end is done off a panel that's pretty small and mostly occupied by Garou. Given the method here, I think the really small sample size makes it a less reliable calculation than the low end which uses a much better panel.
Click to expand...
Thanks for commenting.
 
Armorchompy said:
The 0.15 end is the average of the high and low end hollowness calculations, but the high end is done off a panel that's pretty small and mostly occupied by Garou. Given the method here, I think the really small sample size makes it a less reliable calculation than the low end which uses a much better panel.
Click to expand...
I disagree here. The structure made here would have varying hollownesses. We know this because the rocks were sent from the ground-up by Garou, meaning that the higher up on the structure, the higher density of rocks there would be. Because of this, getting both the hollowness from the bottom of the structure and one more higher up and then averaging those two numbers are much more accurate than simply taking one of them.

There is no problem panel chosen for the high end. It being small doesn't change the fact that it still shows us what we need to see. It being taken up by Garou also means nothing in finding the density of rocks in the area.

We should not be choosing if the low end or the high end are better, because at the end of the day, they are incomplete. The mid end is pretty much objectively best coming from an accuracy standpoint. If you want for someone to look for a different panel to find the density from higher up on the structure, then I can see that argument maybe, but simply picking the low end because it "uses a much better panel" doesn't make sense to me.

Hopefully this made sense.
 
My issue is that as you said no one panel is 100% representative of the whole thing, which means that a panel that shows a very small part of the area is a sample size too small to use when there's a much better one available. If you picked specific sections of the low end panel you'd be able to get results much higher or lower than what it gives too, it's just better to use the biggest pic possible
 
Armorchompy said:
My issue is that as you said no one panel is 100% representative of the whole thing, which means that a panel that shows a very small part of the area is a sample size too small to use when there's a much better one available. If you picked specific sections of the low end panel you'd be able to get results much higher or lower than what it gives too, it's just better to use the biggest pic possible
Click to expand...
We can't use one scan that shows only the bottom part of the structure and say that it's a good representation of the entire thing.

I can see your points with the panel used on the high end, but using it to average is still better than using only the low end, in my opinon.
 
Kachon123 said:
We can't use one scan that shows only the bottom part of the structure and say that it's a good representation of the entire thing.
Click to expand...
I still think it's better than using such a small sample size, sorry. That's my take at least.
 
I concur with the idea that getting an average is objectively better since you’re accounting for all the angles
perhaps the smaller panel may hold less weight, but it should still be factored regardless
 
I mean like, by the same reasoning that using more panels is better you could take one that's completely blank of rocks and use it to lower the result arbitrarily, or one where a rock is right up to the camera to increase it way higher. You're not getting an average, you're ******* up your data
 
Armorchompy said:
I mean like, by the same reasoning that using more panels is better you could take one that's completely blank of rocks and use it to lower the result arbitrarily, or one where a rock is right up to the camera to increase it way higher. You're not getting an average, you're ******* up your data
Click to expand...
It's not ******* up the data because the panel that is used in the high end does none of this.
 
Kachon123 said:
It's not ******* up the data because the panel that is used in the high end does none of this.
Click to expand...
But it could be not representative of the actual density since it's a small sample size, similarly to those hypotheticals.

Anyways, I was asked to give my thoughts but I don't have much stake in this debate so if that's ok I'd like to unfollow the thread.
 
The low-end assumes the trays of light left by the three fighters are consistent and stay about the same size, when in truth they are not even consistent on the same panels themselves, the size of those light trails varies greatly.

The mid-end is objectively better, as it's not only using a single panel for scaling, it's using human-sized characters to directly scale the average amount of rocks in the area.

So I still strongly suggest the use of the mid-end.
 
The low-end assumes the trays of light left by the three fighters are consistent and stay about the same size, when in truth they are not even consistent on the same panels themselves, the size of those light trails varies greatly.

The mid-end is objectively better, as it's not only using a single panel scaling, it's using human-sized characters to directly scale the average the amount of rocks in the area.

So I still strongly suggest the use of the mid-end.
 
I agree with what Therefir is saying about the light trails not being consistent. I do not find the Low-End to be usable, it's too inconsistent. I'd prefer if we had a better shot, but if this is truly the best shot that we can get then I say using it should be alright. But there is just one issue with using the Mid-End.

The Mid-End falls apart for the same reason. It uses the same light trails in the same way. It's just finding an average between the Low-End and High-End number, which means it still relies on the Low-End. In this case the High-End itself would be the better alternative since it doesn't use the Low-End at all.

This scan is indeed more detailed and would normally be used, but from what I'm seeing there is no way to properly scale that image with anything. And I find it absurd to assume their trails are going to be consistent when they fail to be consistent in the same panel.

I don't disagree with what Armor is saying either though, I feel like the sample size is way too small. Honestly, I say this feat is uncalculatable and just leave it alone. Since I find it equally absurd to assume the rocks would spread around by the same density found in that one small panel.

A change from 99.952% hollowness to 99.74% hollowness increased the results by over 441%, which means the margin for error here is rather high. The shape of this structure doesn't really follow anything concrete and can vary rapidly in either direction.

Also is there any reason to assume Garou's stomp alone is what lifted all of those rocks that high? It's possible all three of their movements from bouncing off the rocks, shattering them, or the intense wind pressure is what caused those rocks to be lifted even higher than normal.

We see them bounce off rocks which causes some of them to shatter and send pieces flying everywhere. Maybe those rocks being used were part of bigger pieces that shattered from their jumping which caused them to spread out more as they got higher and higher?

I'm very iffy about this feat in its entirety, but that's just my opinion on this matter.
 
Will post a response for the thread later today.

TheRustyOne said:
Also is there any reason to assume Garou's stomp alone is what lifted all of those rocks that high? It's possible all three of their movements from bouncing off the rocks, shattering them, or the intense wind pressure is what caused those rocks to be lifted even higher than normal.

We see them bounce off rocks which causes some of them to shatter and send pieces flying everywhere. Maybe those rocks being used were part of bigger pieces that shattered from their jumping which caused them to spread out more as they got higher and higher?
Click to expand...

This is a very good point tbh.
 
Bump, again.

I'm currently of the opinion the calculation is not usable based on what I said above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Recon1511
One Punch Man: The Cum gets Revamped
Replies
14
Views
1K
Recon1511
Recon1511
Farfetchedx
Tier 6 OPM Mid-Tier Upgrades
Replies
12
Views
2K
Shadow_x007x
Shadow_x007x
Kachon123
  • Locked
One-Punch Man: Black Sperm Speed Changes
2
Replies
73
Views
2K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Kachon123
  • Locked
One-Punch Man: Atomic Samurai
2 3
Replies
89
Views
4K
Kachon123
Kachon123
Damage3245
  • Locked
One Punch Man - 6-C Calc Removal and Atomic Samurai Revision
2
Replies
74
Views
4K
Damage3245
Damage3245
Back
Top