-
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.
"Possibly" 3-C Saitama
- Thread starter Phoenks
- Start date
-
- Tags
- garou one-punch man saitama
- Status
- 11,416
- 2,550
I think we can still apply the rule to non-spherical destruction as long as it is done from a distance and we use the area of the beam that covered the object that it destroyed.
- 11,605
- 10,784
- Thread starter
- #84
Therefir accepted the milky way and Andromeda ends.
I'm guessing that means he's in favor of
4-A (Hole extended out across the Milky Way), possibly 3-C (Hole extended out to another galaxy)
What are y'alls thoughts on that?
Also, I don't think that the value needs to be halved if they both tanked the explosion at the epicenter anyway.
I'm guessing that means he's in favor of
4-A (Hole extended out across the Milky Way), possibly 3-C (Hole extended out to another galaxy)
What are y'alls thoughts on that?
Also, I don't think that the value needs to be halved if they both tanked the explosion at the epicenter anyway.
- 20,541
- 17,454
His spatial manipulation is upgraded
- 8,997
- 9,718
"possibly 3-C" seems fine
- 11,605
- 10,784
- Thread starter
- #88
Well I haven't updated votes but it seems like Qawsed is outvoted on this? Though now this thread has turned into a bit more than just a slight upgrade. There's now 2 versions of 4-A that need to be considered.
I'll have to update the OP once I'm on my PC.
I'll have to update the OP once I'm on my PC.
- 12,447
- 5,641
I don’t think a 2-1 is really a massive outvote here
- 3,665
- 884
Marvel voted for a possibly so its 3-1 now
- 12,447
- 5,641
Content mods don’t count
- 11,605
- 10,784
- Thread starter
- #95
Frankly, I think they do
And they are also content mods that are very knowledgeable on the verse, so imo they are worth more than just another discussion mod.
TyranoDoom30
He/Him- 2,334
- 1,022
Agreed
- 5,256
- 3,408
So votes 3 - 1? I don't think it's decisive.
Content mods do not count.
Content mods do not count.
- 11,575
- 10,864
not how that works unfortunately, lol.Frankly, I think they do
And they are also content mods that are very knowledgeable on the verse, so imo they are worth more than just another discussion mod.
- 20,541
- 17,454
Eh, it's not a site wide CRT or anything. Dismissing the majority mod opinion doesn't do much overall.
No, it's a downgrade. The 3-C rating is like 10,000x lower than the previous proposed one and the visible star end is also 1,000x lower than the current one.
- 31,397
- 27,687
What are the options for the ends here exactly?
"4-A, possibly 3-C", or just "4-A"?
"4-A, possibly 3-C", or just "4-A"?
- 19,351
- 16,971
I believe the former is what is being proposed in the OP
- 2,282
- 1,337
4A possibly 3C.
- 31,397
- 27,687
I guess I'm fine with the "possibly" rating for it, but no more than that.
- 11,605
- 10,784
- Thread starter
- #104
It's a downgrade and upgrade.
And what I meant is that now we are changing the entire rating since the 4-A is being adjusted as well.
So now we have to decide which 4-A value to use.
- 20,541
- 17,454
I say just go with the readjusted current version. Since the assumptions are all the same.
- 31,397
- 27,687
That's a fair take, but what would you say is the main reason why it's more likely that the clash between the two of them only reached as far as the outskirts of the Milky Way and not possibly as far as Andromeda Galaxy for example?
- 11,605
- 10,784
- Thread starter
- #108
Lower 4-A, with a "possibly 3-C"
"possibly 3-C" has been majority-accepted, so far, at least.
Pretty sure there's a 48 hour thing though.
Yeah, fair, as much as I would say Milky Way is more fair, this is the easiest way to get this through.
- 2,282
- 1,337
Bro can't you read? Possibly 3c is being accepted by most staff
- 3,665
- 884
I think it’s a lower 4-A but we get a possibly 3-C
- 3,303
- 1,926
Chill, I'm just asking a question.
- 20,541
- 17,454
Murata is shown to draw galaxies as spirals or in easily visible patterns. None of the lights destroyed by the punch in the time reversal picture fit his typical artistic display.
In addition no one comments on the beam destroying another galaxy or anything like that. The general calc assumption is to take the more resonable end if the information is lacking and I believe that end is just the visible star end.
- 9,651
- 8,711
- 13,903
- 5,405
like everything else related to the feat, we have absolutely no information regarding it and it could very well be absolutely nothing at all.
- 11,316
- 13,342
Wait, which calculation is currently being used here? The inverse square law apparently isn't usable if the explosion isn't omni-directional from what I'm being told?
Doesn't that mean Qawsedf234 calculation cannot be used, since it's using the Inverse Square Law?
Inverse Square Law = area of the larger object or explosion/area of the object x the initial value
Explosion Area = 3.2943492e+38 m^2
Sun Frontal Area = 3.0438995e+18 m^2
Initial Value (Sun GBE) = 5.693e+41 Joules
3.2943492e+38/3.0438995e+18*5.693e+41 = 6.1614156e+61 Joules (4-A)
I'm having some trouble understanding this, what is going on here?
Doesn't that mean Qawsedf234 calculation cannot be used, since it's using the Inverse Square Law?
Inverse Square Law = area of the larger object or explosion/area of the object x the initial value
Explosion Area = 3.2943492e+38 m^2
Sun Frontal Area = 3.0438995e+18 m^2
Initial Value (Sun GBE) = 5.693e+41 Joules
3.2943492e+38/3.0438995e+18*5.693e+41 = 6.1614156e+61 Joules (4-A)
I'm having some trouble understanding this, what is going on here?
- 20,541
- 17,454
The old calc is an omnidirectional explosion, mine is sector area. Both use inverse square law but mine is smaller due to it being a cone rather than a sphere.
- 11,316
- 13,342
I was told that directional explosions can't be used for the inverse square law and it has to be omnidirectional. Is this a directional or an omnidirectional explosion?
I felt like I understood what was happening and I understand why the original calculation is wrong.
But now my brain is all jumbled and I have no idea what's going on anymore.
Edit: Also, how are you getting your Sector Area? I'm not getting the same numbers as you. Am I using the calculator incorrectly?
Last edited:
- 20,541
- 17,454
Sector area is the area of a circle for an arc radius. The calc assumes a standard energy density spread over the area which can destroy the sun. But you can use inverse square law for anything, it just has to be within reason since while on planets you can quickly rack up unrealistic numbers.
45 degree for the angle and radius for the radius. I'm on mobile atm so I can't provide the picture.
If the numbers are wrong, my imagination would be that all we would need to do is find the hypotenuse.
- 11,316
- 13,342
I see, thank you very much.
These are the numbers I'm getting using a degree of 45 and the radius of 1.5675e+19 m.
I admit that I could be doing something wrong here.
- Status
