The OPM Power Graph

[ZillertheBucko]

If you're trying to argue the author was making the graph specific enough that we can reasonably pixel-scale it, it's extremely hard to believe they wouldn't include numbers, no. You bring up advertisements but those are data points created to be as vague as possible; they don't include the stats because you're not meant to scrutinize it.

I was barely gonna get involved but now you’re just being dishonest as hell my guy and it’s a tad annoying to watch.
It’s hardly pixel scaling to look at points on a graph that has clearly defined a clear defined axis and lines and be like “you’re just extrapolating value from the specific little pixels that Murata didn’t even think about when he drew it”
If we’re gonna keep going with this agenda then just get rid of every calc, because “it’s just supposed to be a visual aid to show this character is generally strong, but we can’t say for sure that Genos can LITERALLY output that many joules specifically, you’re just looking to deep into the little pixels”

fella.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

This looks fine to me, I don't have any objections.

 

[Qawsedf234]

@Qawsedf234 sorry for the @, but do you have an opinion this time around?

The biggest points are ultimate "What do the Y-Axis mean". Because if the Y-Axis are like, 10 Saitama in power that means a lot, but if they're Five Saitama's in power that would heavily lower the result. Saitama is 16 lines high at the end. It could be 16x, it could be what I calced as 59x, or it could be much higher.

I don't think it'll be a lot lower, since the first dot is about 1/3rd or 1/4th up the cell.

I think my graph still works, since if the dot is 1/4th of the Cell's Y value, that means it would be 1/4th of where the Y-Axis is at. After that point you can determine that every line should be equidistance from each other and get a value. For example in this graph if the "1" is at the quarter-step of the cell, you can determine that the Y-line should all be 4.

I think my values are useable, since we know the X-Axis is just time and the Y-Axis is power. But we would through out the raw pixel scaling and only focus on the cell scaling.

 

[Phoenks]

The biggest points are ultimate "What do the Y-Axis mean". Because if the Y-Axis are like, 10 Saitama in power that means a lot, but if they're Five Saitama's in power that would heavily lower the result. Saitama is 16 lines high at the end. It could be 16x, it could be what I calced as 59x, or it could be much higher.

I don't think it'll be a lot lower, since the first dot is about 1/3rd or 1/4th up the cell.

I think my graph still works, since if the dot is 1/4th of the Cell's Y value, that means it would be 1/4th of where the Y-Axis is at. After that point you can determine that every line should be equidistance from each other and get a value. For example in this graph if the "1" is at the quarter-step of the cell, you can determine that the Y-line should all be 4.

I think my values are useable, since we know the X-Axis is just time and the Y-Axis is power. But we would through out the raw pixel scaling and only focus on the cell scaling.

I was mostly asking if you in-general agree with the graph being used for scaling, but thanks for the explanation.

Uh, how exactly does the Y-Axis change much though? Doesn't the multiplicative difference between both lines stay the same regardless of what arbitrary value u think they represent? I'm a bit confused.

Though, I do think you can say the line intercepts at "1" because that's how most exponential graphs are. As @SeijiSetto mentioned.

2^x = y

when x = 0, y = 1

 

[Qawsedf234]

Uh, how exactly does the Y-Axis change much though?

It could if there was less information, but my point is that we can take a single cell and compare it to their point, and after that we can get a ratio that every other cell would follow.

Its just that the pixel scaling stuff I used wouldn't work. Only the cell ends.

 

[Phoenks]

It could if there was less information, but my point is that we can take a single cell and compare it to their point, and after that we can get a ratio that every other cell would follow.

Its just that the pixel scaling stuff I used wouldn't work. Only the cell ends.

From what I see, Saitama starts at 1/4th of a cell. And then reaches the 15th or 16th cell.

That would give you anywhere from a 60-64x multiplier. Which is nearly exactly the same as what you calculated it as.

One cell seems to be 40~ pixels. while Saitama intercepts y at about 10~ pixels from the bottom.

So that should be pretty consistent.

 

[Qawsedf234]

That would give you anywhere from a 60-64x multiplier. Which is nearly exactly the same as what you calculated it as.

I'm saying we get rid of this

Now for true measurement

• Garou = 191 / 10.5 = 18.1904761x above Saitama's starting point
• Saitama = 609 / 10.5 = 58x above his starting point

And only use this

So with the scaled lines (that being since the squares are slightly different we should only take the first one and then expand it out)

• 5 + 11 / 2 (for the center point) = 10.5 pixels for Saitama at the start of the fight
• 39 Pixels = The height of the first cell
• Garou = 5 Lines = 39 * 5 / 10.5 = 18.571428571x above Saitama's starting point
• Saitama = 16 Lines = 39 * 16 / 10.5 = 59.428571x above his starting point

Since the second one is cell to cell ratio rater than a direct ratio.

 

[Phoenks]

Snip.

I'd agree. That makes the most sense.

Can I add you to those that agree?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Sure

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

This checks out.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Yeah Ayewale it's on you to prove we aren't supposed to take it seriously. Like you would have an argument if this was played of as a joke or gag but it isn't the case at all.

It does not work like that, you get to prove why it should be taken literally. There is no unit or anything of such to use it as a multiplier so it is really vague.
Also pixel scaling a graph is another new battle boarding gimmick and I thought I have seen it all.

It is mostly based on assumptions so it is iffy and possibly at best.

 

[Phoenks]

It does not work like that, you get to prove why it should be taken literally.

Because the author/artist show deliberately show us it, multiple times, in coordination with other panels and even the narrator itself... it is to be as taken as literally as any other panel in the manga that we use for scaling.

It would indeed be on you to prove otherwise.

There is no unit or anything of such to use it as a multiplier so it is really vague.

It gives us clear locations of their placement on a coordinate grid. That's all we need to deduce the necessary information required for scaling.

It is mostly based on assumptions so it is iffy and possibly at best.

It would require more assumptions to say it's not a literal demonstration of their power levels.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Because the author/artist show deliberately show us it, multiple times, in coordination with other panels... it is to be as taken as literally as any other panel in the manga that we use for scaling.

It would indeed be on you to prove otherwise.


It gives us clear locations of their placement on a coordinate grid. That's all we need to deduce the necessary information required for scaling.


It would require more assumptions to say it's not a literal demonstration of their power levels.

Of course it is a literal visual description of their increase in strength. What it is not is a number description and you are slapping a number on it. So yes it is an assumption that this is the number the author meant.
Also in fact graphs and their grids does not have to be 1-2-3, it can be 2-6-18, it can be 1-3-9 e.t.c. So yes your numbers are assumptions. I could care less about the thread but don't pass your assumptions as facts.

 

[Phoenks]

Of course it is a literal visual description of their increase in strength.

Also in fact graphs and their grids does not have to be 1-2-3, it can be 2-6-18, it can be 1-3-9 e.t.c. So yes your numbers are assumptions. I could care less about the thread but don't pass your assumptions as facts.

If you agree it's a literal visual description, then you should also agree it should be used, just like any other "literal visual description" in the manga, no?

And yes, you're correct it could be non-linear. Of course those kinds of things could exist. But that would be more of an assumption since that's a deviation from the standard coordinate grid, especially associated with other exponential graphs.

Furthermore, those kinds of exotic grids would actually exponentiate the feat even further than what we are currently assuming. So, this would actually be the low-ball, which is what VSBW usually goes for, anyway.

Not sure what exactly the issue is in that case?

 

[karo_senpaii]

Of course it is a literal visual description of their increase in strength. What it is not is a number description and you are slapping a number on it. So yes it is an assumption that this is the number the author meant.
Also in fact graphs and their grids does not have to be 1-2-3, it can be 2-6-18, it can be 1-3-9 e.t.c. So yes your numbers are assumptions. I could care less about the thread but don't pass your assumptions as facts.

Like half of what we do here are based on assumptions dude. Just assumptions on the best possible interpretation..I have no idea what you are getting at

 

[Phoenks]

Sure

By the way, I don't think we should be cutting Saitama/Garou's AP in half anymore.

They both tanked the full collision of SP^2 (The energy is concentrated the most at the epicenter of their punch collision. Blast was also containing the entire force of the blast in a sphere around them for a while). It even says as much in Saitama's Durability.

And both of them can harm each other despite that.

 

[Qawsedf234]

By the way, I don't think we should be cutting Saitama/Garou's AP in half anymore.

I think we should, because tanking something isn't the same as AP. Both can be more durable than strong, since they would otherwise one-shot themselves if they weren't.

So their durability would full scale but their punches would still downscale until they evolve to become stronger.

 

[Phoenks]

I think we should, because tanking something isn't the same as AP. Both can be more durable than strong, since they would otherwise one-shot themselves if they weren't.

So their durability would full scale but their punches would still downscale until they evolve to become stronger.

Well, "tanking" means they took zero damage from it.

But Saitama right after punches Garou with enough force to do more damage to him than what that explosion did.

So, from what I see, his AP must be > the full blast.

 

[karo_senpaii]

I think we should, because tanking something isn't the same as AP. Both can be more durable than strong, since they would otherwise one-shot themselves if they weren't.

So their durability would full scale but their punches would still downscale until they evolve to become stronger.

Didn't they both draw blood from each other with their first few punches on Jupiter? So like they still scale regardless prior to the growth

 

[PrinceofPein]

If you agree it's a literal visual description, then you should also agree it should be used, just like any other "literal visual description" in the manga, no?

And yes, you're correct it could be non-linear. Of course those kinds of things could exist. But that would be more of an assumption since that's a deviation from the standard coordinate grid, especially associated with other exponential graphs.

Furthermore, those kinds of exotic grids would actually exponentiate the feat even further than what we are currently assuming. So, this would actually be the low-ball, which is what VSBW usually goes for, anyway.

Not sure what exactly the issue is in that case?

My issue is slapping a number on it and it goes against our multiplier standards.

Multipliers come from direct statements instead of being reasoned from something else.

This is not a direct statement and it is reasoned from something else, so that's what the issue is. Multipliers should come from direct statements and not from reasoning like this.

 

[Phoenks]

If you believe it's "a literal visual description of their increase in strength," then you should be fine with equivalating this to a "direct statement." I don't see much of a difference, tbh.

But eh, whatever. If that's your opinion, that's fine.

 

[Qawsedf234]

My issue is slapping a number on it and it goes against our multiplier standards.

This is the rest of that paragraph

Multipliers come from direct statements instead of being reasoned from something else. That means, for example, that if a verse has powerlevels or statistics, the doubling of a statistic or power level should not be concluded to correspond to the power of the character doubling, unless it is clearly specified to work that way.

The graph is showing Saitama's end strength relative to his starting strength. After that it's determining if the graph is valid and if it does represent on AP rather than a collection of other stats.

 

[karo_senpaii]

My issue is slapping a number on it and it goes against our multiplier standards.

This is not a direct statement and it is reasoned from something else, so that's what the issue is. Multipliers should come from direct statements and not from reasoning like this.

I believe we can agree direct statements are not just limited to words. A literal visual representation can also serve as a direct statement

 

[PrinceofPein]

This is the rest of that paragraph

The graph is showing Saitama's end strength relative to his starting strength. After that it's determining if the graph is valid and if it does represent on AP rather than a collection of other stats.

It does says it should not be concluded to correspond to the doubling of the AP of the character. And that is the case here.
The argument is not if he had an increase in strength, he does, the argument is if it is quantifiable in a way that it can be applied to the profile while following the standards. Which is frankly what I have a problem with.

If you believe it's "a literal visual description of their increase in strength," then you should be fine with equivalating this to a "direct statement." I don't see much of a difference, tbh.

But eh, whatever. If that's your opinion, that's fine.

Direct statements usually go in the line of "He had three times increase in strength" this is an exponential graph and not linear, so like I said said unless there are units, there is no real way to really apply it to the stats.

Just my humble opinion though, it is not the law or anything. I get where everyone is coming from.

 

[Qawsedf234]

if it is quantifiable in a way that it can be applied to the profile while following the standards.

A 2D linear growth chart to me seems like it counts, but if needed we can ask input from Admins/Bureaucrats what their opinions are.

 

[Nierre]

I see where Pein is coming from, so I'm neutral.

 

[PrinceofPein]

A 2D linear growth chart to me seems like it counts, but if needed we can ask input from Admins/Bureaucrats what their opinions are.

Damage and KT are knowledgeable, if you can help tag them

 

[Phoenks]

@Damage3245 I believe you were neutral on this last time. Do you have any strong thoughts on this now that it's been a year?

 

[Golden_Void]

For an exponential formula using f(x) = a(1+r)^x, where a = initial amount, r = growth rate, x = number of time intervals:

Then X would be the number of horizontal boxes from the origin, A would be the current AP from the feat, R would be the unknown y-axis value. Lore-wise, the timeframe would be far smaller than the timeframe provided in the Platinum Sperm fight.

However, since the current proposals use linear equations which I GUESS work for a lowball (idk where the explanation for that is), that's cool too. I agree either way.

 

[Golden_Void]

I actually dislike that if this gets approved, we will be using a linear function in an exponential context. But that's beside the point of the OP.

 

[Phoenks]

it's a low-ball, but VSBW will barely even accept this. It's the best I can do.

 

[Excellence616]

I agree with OP

 

[Phoenks]

A 2D linear growth chart to me seems like it counts, but if needed we can ask input from Admins/Bureaucrats what their opinions are.

I've asked multiple admins on their walls but nobody seems to be interested in the topic. I already have 3 admins, including a super admin here that agree, with only 1-2 disagreements from rather knowledgeable members. That should suffice for now.

Though, do you need the calc mods to reapproved your calculation since it's been changed?

Also, on the topic of halving the SP^2. If you're in disagreement, does that mean we need to make another thread about it?

 

[Qawsedf234]

, do you need the calc mods to reapproved your calculation since it's been changed?

The math itself was unchanged, just the end result. So idk.

 

[Nierre]

if the math wasn't changed, then it should be fine

 

[Minos_the_Judge]

Absolutely agree.

By the way, can we say that Saitama becomes stronger through this mathematical graph until the moment he ends up on Earth? If you calculate how many seconds it took for him to become almost 60 times stronger, and then the acceleration, and then assume how many seconds passed between the last page with the graph and Saitama's arrival on Earth, you can calculate how much more Saitama possibly became stronger.

 

[Phoenks]

Absolutely agree.

By the way, can we say that Saitama becomes stronger through this mathematical graph until the moment he ends up on Earth? If you calculate how many seconds it took for him to become almost 60 times stronger, and then the acceleration, and then assume how many seconds passed between the last page with the graph and Saitama's arrival on Earth, you can calculate how much more Saitama possibly became stronger.

We can't do this much. That would require way too many assumptions.

 

[Minos_the_Judge]

We can't do this much. That would require way too many assumptions.

Okay, anyway, it would be still 3-C

 

[Phoenks]

@Qawsedf234 could you open the pages? Your calc has been approved again, just in case.

Also, going to ask this again:

Also, on the topic of halving the SP^2. If you're in disagreement, does that mean we need to make another thread about it?

 

[Minos_the_Judge]

We can't do this much. That would require way too many assumptions.

But can we then add "At least, likely far higher" because of this? No calculations.