The Genocide of the Saiyan, REDUX (Dragon Ball)

[Nullflowerblush]

In Ep. 19 of Dragon Ball Super, "Despair Redux! The Return of the Evil Emperor, Frieza!", Frieza is depicted destroying Planet Vegeta in a flashback.
In Dragon Ball Super: Broly, Frieza is depicting destroying Planet Vegeta in a flashback.

Spoiler

Currently, Frieza is accepted as Dwarf Star level+ (4.8947252288836208908512638183148 Quettatons of TNT), as per the calculation of the former depiction.
This thread and this calculation of the latter depiction intend to revise that, instead scaling Frieza to Large Planet level (7.44200741 Ronnatons of TNT).

Here are a few counterarguments that can be made, and the responses to said counters.

1. "The angling is off."
   The images reflected off of Frieza's Scouter line up nearly seamlessly, and even if the image is slightly off-center, the result is going to be identical. To find the distance the debris traveled, a circle was outlined around where the debris stopped, and the diameter was used. The circle's placement is irrelevant.
2. "The timing is unreliable. There are too many cuts."
   Every cut within the scene carries the continuity of the previous, down to the direction in which sparks fly across space and towards Frieza, the speed and timing of the traveling of shock waves, and the sound of the planet exploding. The time is consistent throughout the scene, even between every cut.
3. "The image is shown through the reflection of Frieza's Scouter, which means that the measurements are going to be unreliable."
   Everything needed to properly perform pixel measurements is presented to the audience. The destruction of the planet is shown clearly and completely.
4. And lastly, "Why use this version over the previous?"
   Easy; the previous version is outdated.
   • In the anime, Frieza destroys Vegeta to "stave off my boredom". In Broly, Frieza destroys Vegeta to prevent the Saiyans from rebelling.
   • The anime's depiction of Vegeta is clearly inspired by Bardock - The Father of Goku and is superseded by the current depiction in Broly.
   • In the anime, Frieza's soldiers hover around the upper atmosphere providing Frieza an audience. In Broly, they are deeper and caught in the attack.
   • In Broly, Bardock is present.
   • In Broly, the Supernova is shown destroying the surface of Vegeta before ultimately exploding the entire planet.
   • In the anime, Vegeta blowing up is nearly instantaneously. Broly refutes this.
     All in all, the depiction in Broly is, currently, the correct depiction.

How does this affect scaling?
Eh.

Spoiler: Updated Scaling Chain

Covering only the major points...

First Form Frieza, <50% Final Form Frieza, Post-Zenkai Goku = >622.609943 Ronnatons (High 5-A)
Kaio-ken x20 Goku, 50% Frieza = >12.4521989 Quettatons (Low 4-C)
100% Frieza = >24.9043978 Quettatons
SSJ Goku, SSJ Future Gohan = >31.1304972 Quettatons
Future Android 17 = >62.2609944 Quettatons
Semi-Perfect Cell = >124.521989 Quettatons (Low 4-C+)
Super Trunks = >1245.21989 Quettatons (High 4-C)
Suppressed Perfect Cell, Cell Juniors, Piccolo = <~1245.21989 Quettatons
Supreme Kai, Gohan = >~1245.21989 Quettatons
SSJ Goku = >2490.43978 Quettatons
SSJ Gohan, Cell, Full Power Cell = >2.60506253 Foe
Powerhouse Cell >26.0506253 Foe (4-B)

Let's discuss.

 

[Damage3245]

I've moved this to the Calc Group Discussion section, as that is a more appropriate place to determine which out of two or more versions of a calc should be used.

 

[Nullflowerblush]

Thank you.

 

[KLOL506]

There is one massive problem.

The feat must depict all the debris dispersing completely from the screen for it to be calculable in the first place and coming to a dead stop. Otherwise, it cannot be calculated. Such is the rule for planet-busting feats now.

 

[Nullflowerblush]

Why is that? Is the debris not far enough to breach the GBE?

 

[Damage3245]

There is one massive problem.

The feat must depict all the debris dispersing completely from the screen for it to be calculable in the first place and coming to a dead stop. Otherwise, it cannot be calculated. Such is the rule for planet-busting feats now.

What do you mean the debris must come to a dead stop?

 

[KLOL506]

What do you mean the debris must come to a dead stop?

Its speed can't be calculated if it is still in motion and hasn't left the screen.

Why is that? Is the debris not far enough to breach the GBE?

Wouldn't know, but that's what Ugarik said once.

 

[Nullflowerblush]

If that is the case, what happens now? The previous calculation is based on an outdated depiction of events.

 

[KLOL506]

Actually, now that I look at it, the sudden slow-down of debris in this version works against this version of the feat, since by logical standards if you were to go far and beyond escape velocity there's no way in hell a slowdown would occur especially in the vacuum of outer space. Now I know fiction isn't exactly the best place to use these standards, but with how consistent DB explosions on planets and galaxies have been with depicting debris completely vanishing up until now, one can't help but bring this issue up (Someone brought it up for the Naruto Moon Splitting Feat once as well).

Also, the high-end value would still take precedence ignoring all of that and the "must leave the screen" rule, as most of the explosion's energy is expended in full form in the first second or so, and it's actually Dwarf Star level (High 5-A starts at 6.906e+37 J), also, Relativistic KE should be used as the speed is greater than 1% SoL.

 

[KLOL506]

If that is the case, what happens now? The previous calculation is based on an outdated depiction of events.

You can't use the new one as it stands. Just stick with the previous one (DBS EP19) until and unless a better and more explosive showing retcons both the DBS and the DBS Broly version.

 

[Damage3245]

Its speed can't be calculated if it is still in motion and hasn't left the screen.

That doesn't make any sense. You don't need to see an object come to a complete stop in order to calculate its speed.

Where in our standards is this "must leave the screen" rule?

 

[KLOL506]

That doesn't make any sense. You don't need to see an object come to a complete stop in order to calculate its speed.

Where in our standards is this "must leave the screen" rule?

It was from this comment by Ugarik.

 

[Damage3245]

It was from this comment by Ugarik.

So, not actually a part of our standards then.


@Nullflowerblush I think the calc is fine as it is. I support using the more up to date version from the Broly movie over the anime version.

 

[KLOL506]

Basically, you have to show that all the debris travelled the same distance, which in cases like this is virtually impossible without them leaving the screen.

 

[KLOL506]

So, not actually a part of our standards then.

Incorrect. It actually is, just that nobody bothered putting it in the appropriate page. IDK where it would be best to put in.

 

[KLOL506]

I mentioned the problems regarding such planet-busting feats here, and Ugarik agreed with me, as did M3X I believe.

 

[Damage3245]

The debris going off-screen is not the only reliable indicator for speed.

All we need is to check that the debris is moving a certain distance over a certain timeframe. We don't need every single bit of debris calced for that, just an average of a few of them should be sufficient if one alone isn't enough.

 

[KLOL506]

We don't need every single bit of debris calced for that

We actually do in fact, otherwise to say that all the mass was dispersed at the same speed would simply put, be completely wrong.

 

[Damage3245]

We actually do in fact, otherwise to say that all the mass was dispersed at the same speed would simply put, be completely wrong.

If the speed of five pieces of debris were calced, and they were all fairly close to each other in terms of velocity, then why would we not just take the average speed of the debris and use that for K.E.?

 

[KLOL506]

If the speed of five pieces of debris were calced, and they were all fairly close to each other in terms of velocity, then why would we not just take the average speed of the debris and use that for K.E.?

Most likely because they don't constitute the majority of the mass of the original object. It's why the Deoxys Meteor Calc was on such hot water and triggered a sitewide CRT on similar feats in the first place.

Good luck finding the speed of every single piece of debris (That remained intact and didn't get reduced to nothing) and averaging it out to get your speed.

 

[Nullflowerblush]

Just stick with the previous one (DBS EP19) until and unless a better and more explosive showing retcons both the DBS and the DBS Broly version.

But, like, why? The previous calculation is already retconned. Why are we sticking with its depiction?

 

[KLOL506]

But, like, why? The previous calculation is already retconned. Why are we sticking with its depiction?

Because it's actually calculable, everything is visible and all the debris travel at the same speed and are concretely shown to cover the same distance even. The new Broly version doesn't have that luxury.

 

[Nullflowerblush]

Again, though, that is not the correct depiction of events.

 

[KLOL506]

Again, though, that is not the correct depiction of events.

Not much you can do about it honestly, given how currently things stand. If you can't prove and show ALL of the debris moved the same distance at the same speed, the feat is unusable.

 

[Damage3245]

Most likely because they don't constitute the majority of the mass of the original object. It's why the Deoxys Meteor Calc was on such hot water and triggered a sitewide CRT on similar feats in the first place.

Good luck finding the speed of every single piece of debris (That remained intact and didn't get reduced to nothing) and averaging it out to get your speed.

Like I said, we have no need to find the speed of every single piece of debris.

All we need is an average speed, which will get us an average K.E.

 

[KLOL506]

Like I said, we have no need to find the speed of every single piece of debris.

You actually do, otherwise you would be stuck with finding the KE of the specific pieces of debris.

All we need is an average speed, which will get us an average K.E.

You need the average speed of all the debris that would constitute the majority of the planet's mass, otherwise you cannot use that speed for the entire planet's worth of mass for KE, that would simply be incorrect.

 

[Nullflowerblush]

Not much you can do about it honestly, given how currently things stand. If you can't prove and show ALL of the debris moved the same distance at the same speed, the feat is unusable.

Well, my problem is no longer about the current calculations; the standards have already been laid out. My issue is with using the older, outdated calculation.

 

[Armorchompy]

Incorrect. It actually is, just that nobody bothered putting it in the appropriate page. IDK where it would be best to put in.

So.

• Despite the length of the thread, only 4 calc members ever commented (You, M3X, Mitch, Migue, with Mitch only commenting a few times in its very early stages, so really it was just 3), which is absolutely not enough to apply such a massive site-wide revision.
• The thread is three years old and I have literally never seen it mentioned by anyone, our standards changed in various different ways since without accounting for it.
• Nobody actually ever applied this anywhere.
• Nobody ever actually considered the implication of the new "standard" would have on the website as a whole
• Nobody actually ever even bothered to go back and see just how many calculations this would affect outside of Pokémon.
• Nobody ever bothered trying to figure out a backup method, they just chose to slap 5-B on it and move on with their lives.
• Nobody ever considered that if the explosion is coming from within the object then obviously the parts closer to it will be receiving more energy than the ones on the exterior.

And you're claiming this is an accepted standard?

 

[KLOL506]

Well, my problem is no longer about the current calculations; the standards have already been laid out. My issue is with using the older, outdated calculation.

Nothing to be done on that front then I am afraid.

 

[KLOL506]

So.

• Despite the length of the thread, only 4 calc members ever commented (You, M3X, Mitch, Migue, with Mitch only commenting a few times in its very early stages, so really it was just 3), which is absolutely not enough to apply such a massive site-wide revision.
• The thread is three years old and I have literally never seen it mentioned by anyone, our standards changed in various different ways since without accounting for it.
• Nobody actually ever applied this anywhere.
• Nobody ever actually considered the implication of the new "standard"
• Nobody actually ever even bothered to go back and see just how many calculations this would affect outside of Pokémon.
• Nobody ever bothered trying to figure out a backup method, they just chose to slap 5-B on it and move on with their lives.
• Nobody ever considered that if the explosion is coming from within the object then obviously the parts closer to it will be receiving more energy than the ones on the exterior.

And you're claiming this is an accepted standard?

5 calc members, you forgot Ugarik.

And unfortunately, yeah. That's pretty much how it went.

 

[Damage3245]

You actually do, otherwise you would be stuck with finding the KE of the specific pieces of debris.


You need the average speed of all the debris that would constitute the majority of the planet's mass, otherwise you cannot use that speed for the entire planet's worth of mass for KE, that would simply be incorrect.

That seems needlessly strict.

Let me illustrate the issue with what you're describing.

Seeing the objects "move off screen" is just a matter of checking that the majority of debris has moved from Point A to Point B.

• Point A being the planet where the debris started.
• Point B being the distance from the planet to the edge of the screen.

If you change what Point B is though, say, you make it halfway between the planet and the edge of the screen... Then that still gets you a distance value. If the majority of the debris passes the halfway point then you can find the speed that it took the debris to reach that halfway point (Point B) from where it started (Point A).

So... All we need is a distance that the debris travelled here, and if most of the debris has visibly crossed that point, then it's just as valid a distance as checking to see that they've travelled off-screen.

And in my opinion, we have that distance in the new calc.

Well, my problem is no longer about the current calculations; the standards have already been laid out. My issue is with using the older, outdated calculation.

The old calc should be removed either way.

 

[Armorchompy]

5 calc members, you forgot Ugarik.

And unfortunately, yeah. That's pretty much how it went.

Four calc members isn't enough to apply a site-wide revision on that level. Maybe it was back then but it sure as FRICK isn't now and nobody actually bothered to apply it in the meantime, so.

 

[Damage3245]

Four calc members isn't enough to apply a site-wide revision on that level. Maybe it was back then but it sure as ***** isn't now and nobody actually bothered to apply it in the meantime, so.

I agree. If it's not in our standards pages, then it's not a strict standard we have to uphold.

Do you have any issues with the new version of the calc?

 

[KLOL506]

That seems needlessly strict.

Let me illustrate the issue with what you're describing.

Seeing the objects "move off screen" is just a matter of checking that the majority of debris has moved from Point A to Point B.

• Point A being the planet where the debris started.
• Point B being the distance from the planet to the edge of the screen.

If you change what Point B is though, say, you make it halfway between the planet and the edge of the screen... Then that still gets you a distance value. If the majority of the debris passes the halfway point then you can find the speed that it took the debris to reach that halfway point (Point B) from where it started (Point A).

So... All we need is a distance that the debris travelled here, and if most of the debris has visibly crossed that point, then it's just as valid a distance as checking to see that they've travelled off-screen.

And in my opinion, we have that distance in the new calc.

You would still need rock-solid confirmation that all the debris moved that distance at the same speed.

 

[Armorchompy]

I agree. If it's not in our standards pages, then it's not a strict standard we have to uphold.

Do you have any issues with the new version of the calc?

oh SHIT right this is a shonen thread BYEEEEE

 

[KLOL506]

Four calc members isn't enough to apply a site-wide revision on that level. Maybe it was back then but it sure as ***** isn't now and nobody actually bothered to apply it in the meantime, so.

Then we should see what @Ugarik has to say about it, if he's still even here.

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Therefir @CloverDragon03 @Migue79 @M3X_2.0 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Agnaa Your assistance here would be appreciated too.

 

[Damage3245]

You would still need rock-solid confirmation that all the debris moved that distance at the same speed.

We make assumptions for our calcs, you know.

For many of our K.E. calcs we almost never have "rock-solid confirmation" of perfectly consistent speed.

 

[KLOL506]

We make assumptions for our calcs, you know.

I do, but this is one of those type of feats where the lesser the number of assumptions, the better.

 

[KLOL506]

If you want the least amount of assumptions, just stick with the GBE you can get from the StarDestroyer calculator.

 

[Damage3245]

I do, but this is one of those type of feats where the lesser the number of assumptions, the better.

It's the same number of assumptions. All we're doing is changing the distance involved from the arbitrary "edge of screen" limit.

You're talking about the debris travelling from Point A to Point B (the debris passing an invisible threshold of distance off-screen).

I'm talking about the debris travelling from Point A to Point B (the debris passing a visible threshold of distance on-screen).