• 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.
Neither 4-A nor 3-B, let's do the average and close at 3-C everyone is happy and end of conversation

OIP.WpgPDnB5o-db_n-rP73xlQHaE7
 
ok so in terms of kaio ken, it functions through ki control, and ki Prob does fall under universal energies, seeing as its life energy. So I’d say yeah.
Stand seeing is a “biological trait“ I suppose, as you Ordinarily need a virus to get a stand, and thus see one. If he can copy traits like, seeing in extra colors or amphibious skin, then I’d say yeah. Otherwise no.
And jsut checked, speed force higher d so no on that.
Ok cool thanks
now time to ask 1000 more questions about cosmic garou
 
Remember when we thought GOD was just some "personification of mother nature" back when his only apostles were Homeless Emperor and vaccine man?
 
4-A feats have to travel the span of light years too. Energy traveling the span of 16,000 light years is called being 4-A.
Actually not true. Galaxy level energy on this site is just calculated from the raw energy to destroy each thing in the galaxy, not accounting for the energy drop of over distance, at least to my knowledge.
 
Actually not true. Galaxy level energy on this site is just calculated from the raw energy to destroy each thing in the galaxy, not accounting for the energy drop of over distance, at least to my knowledge.
Ok this is called moving the goal post. 11 milliom star systems destroyed should be labeled as multi solar system. If the yield comes up higher than what our current 4-A scale is, it would just increase the yield requirements for 4-A and above.
 
The reason the calcs are getting inflated numbers is because modern calculations in general use inflated methods while the AP Tiering parameters were established earlier.
 
Ok this is called moving the goal post. 11 milliom star systems destroyed should be labeled as multi solar system. If the yield comes up higher than what our current 4-A scale is, it would just increase the yield requirements for 4-A and above.
You're the one moving the goalpost. The GBE of a galaxy is how much energy it would take to destroy one. It's not my fault that destroying 11 million stars 16,000 light years away happens to be greater than the GBE of an average galaxy. Blame the inverse square law.

You understand you are pretty much saying that if a character, from 200 miles away, levels a building with their punch's shockwave, that we should move their Multi City Block level feat down to Building Level, right?
 
You're the one moving the goalpost. The GBE of a galaxy is how much energy it would take to destroy one. It's not my fault that destroying 11 million stars 16,000 light years away happens to be greater than the GBE of an average galaxy. Blame the inverse square law.

You understand you are pretty much saying that if a character, from 200 miles away, levels a building with their punch's shockwave, that we should move their Multi City Block level feat down to Building Level, right?
Then maybe inverse square law isn't that accurate tbh
 
Actually not true. Galaxy level energy on this site is just calculated from the raw energy to destroy each thing in the galaxy, not accounting for the energy drop of over distance, at least to my knowledge.
It is the opposite afaik. Galaxy level accounts for energy drop but destroying everything isn't necessity
 
You're the one moving the goalpost. The GBE of a galaxy is how much energy it would take to destroy one. It's not my fault that destroying 11 million stars 16,000 light years away happens to be greater than the GBE of an average galaxy. Blame the inverse square law.

You understand you are pretty much saying that if a character, from 200 miles away, levels a building with their punch's shockwave, that we should move their Multi City Block level feat down to Building Level, right?
Dude it’s so simple why would we label and attack multi galaxy if it didn’t destroy multiple galaxies?

If the math on his calculation ends up being right, that would just mean stellar, interstellar and cosmic level feats would get upgraded.
 
Then maybe inverse square law isn't that accurate tbh
Argue with the physical law that has built our entire understanding of astrophysics. Go ahead. You definitely know better than the hundreds of astrophysicists who have run hundreds of painstaicking experiments, and made thousands of acute observations that all support the inverse square law being a universal constant in our universe. The only thing the inverse square law doesn't apply to in terms of energy fall off is gravity.

I don't get the trend on this site where some people go "well maybe (insert objective fact grounded in hundreds of scientific papers) isn't accurate". Like wtf do you know? Show me your college degree, or write me a paper explaining why this constant of our universe doesn't exist, using experiments and observations. Put that through peer review, and then we'll talk.
 
Argue with the physical law that has built our entire understanding of astrophysics. Go ahead. You definitely know better than the hundreds of astrophysicists who have run hundreds of painstaicking experiments, and made thousands of acute observations that all support the inverse square law being a universal constant in our universe. The only thing the inverse square law doesn't apply to in terms of energy fall off is gravity.

I don't get the trend on this site where some people go "well maybe (insert objective fact grounded in hundreds of scientific papers) isn't accurate". Like wtf do you know? Show me your college degree, or write me a paper explaining why this constant of our universe doesn't exist, using experiments and observations. Put that through peer review, and then we'll talk.
It’s not about the math it’s about the label itself.
 
Multiple solar systems were destroyed not multiple galaxies
Not necessarily. In different shots in the same chapter we could clearly see galaxies, and even IRL, you would still be able to see at least 1 galaxy from where Garou and Saitama were. The fact that they made the entire area dark means that the destruction of galaxies is possible.
 
The current calc isn't based on the parameters that multiple galaxies were destroyed, though, so I don't see why that's relevant.
 
Not necessarily. In different shots in the same chapter we could clearly see galaxies, and even IRL, you would still be able to see at least 1 galaxy from where Garou and Saitama were. The fact that they made the entire area dark means that the destruction of galaxies is possible.
This I can get behind. The point I’m trying to make is that the current calculation is labeling 11 million stars as multi galaxy.
 
And we do our tiers based on the energy released. You know, like a sane person. It just so happens this feat released more energy than destroying the galaxy.
Explain to me, in the most generous way possible, what you think my argument is?
 
Back
Top