• 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.

Tokyo Ghoul 8-B calculation update

Status
Not open for further replies.
FuriousFieryFist

FuriousFieryFist

263
223
In short the 8-B calculation that the verses top tiers scale to doesn't factor in all the bars bent by Eto when she destroys the compactor. There are two panels that suggest more bars were bent then just 8 and depending on which one we use the new results they would scale to would be much higher. The first panel is definitive in that the bars are bent or misshapen so there's no debating whether she destroyed them or not; I took the liberty of labeling them in order for it to be easily to count how many are broken.
2HupUrG.jpeg

Now the other method assumes that Eto broke all the bars in the compactor which are easily countable in this panel which number 18. As you can see it's very close to the number we find in the other panel so assuming the last one was destroyed as well seems very likely to me however I don't want to assume without moderator permission first. Anyways the new values that would scale to top tiers would be 184.47125 Tons (8-A) if we go with 17 and 195.3225 Tons (8-A) if we decide the full amount is fine to use. Either is quite the upgrade so I'm fine with whatever's agreed upon.
 
Last edited:
Due to the layering of the... tubes, I suppose... and the presence of textboxes, I'm not certain I can definitively say that all of those are "bent". You may be right, you may not be, I just wouldn't be confident in agreeing, whereas the images presented in the calc are clean-cut and close-ended.

Sorry.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Due to the layering of the... tubes, I suppose... and the presence of textboxes, I'm not certain I can definitively say that all of those are "bent". You may be right, you may not be, I just wouldn't be confident in agreeing, whereas the images presented in the calc are clean-cut and close-ended.

Sorry.
Click to expand...
If only there was something that could fix this ordeal...8-B Possibly 8-A
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Due to the layering of the... tubes, I suppose... and the presence of textboxes, I'm not certain I can definitively say that all of those are "bent". You may be right, you may not be, I just wouldn't be confident in agreeing, whereas the images presented in the calc are clean-cut and close-ended.

Sorry.
Click to expand...
The calc uses one of the least bent bars and applies that value to all the others despite some being way more bent, so the calc is already lowballing. Your point against using the other view of the bent bars is kind of redundant when we see a much clearer view of all the bars being bent than the initial picture used to find the 8 bent bars. You can clearly see in the second picture the bars are massively deformed compared to it's original look. All of the visible bars display more deformation than the one that was used to find the initial value that was applied to all so I can't help but feel this is needless scrutiny.
 
Livinmeme said:
If only there was something that could fix this ordeal...8-B Possibly 8-A
Click to expand...
just slap possibly 0 because who knows, right

FuriousFieryFist said:
The calc uses one of the least bent bars and applies that value to all the others despite some being way more bent, so the calc is already lowballing. Your point against using the other view of the bent bars is kind of redundant when we see a much clearer view of all the bars being bent than the initial picture used to find the 8 bent bars. You can clearly see in the second picture the bars are massively deformed compared to it's original look. All of the visible bars display more deformation than the one that was used to find the initial value that was applied to all so I can't help but feel this is needless scrutiny.
Click to expand...
What do you mean "least bent"? The scan it uses measures three bent bars and uses the middle value of them. I also don't know what you mean with the followup statement- there is no "much clearer view" of more bars, the next view we have is the one used in the OP, which I don't find to be as clear. The second image doesn't show all bars being far beyond what the calc asserts- one of the bars here is substantially higher but most of them are relatively straight, with minimal bending.

So I just straight up disagree. Again, sorry.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
What do you mean "least bent"? The scan it uses measures three bent bars and uses the middle value of them. I also don't know what you mean with the followup statement- there is no "much clearer view" of more bars, the next view we have is the one used in the OP, which I don't find to be as clear. The second image doesn't show all bars being far beyond what the calc asserts- one of the bars here is substantially higher but most of them are relatively straight, with minimal bending.
Click to expand...
The found bend he used as an average is not that large of a deformation. Finding the angle is actually pretty easy: (Cos^-1(30/180) *180/pi) * 2-180 = 20 degrees. The before picture shows every single bar jutting out horizontally from the wall. The picture presented in the op has every single bar being bent by a significant degree, the only change is the bend begins at the wall and not in the middle of the bar where it's obvious. Drawing lines to each side of the compacter the degree to which all the bars are bent becomes pretty clear.
QcEQIjT.jpeg


It is no stretch that we can assume all these in frame minus like one are bent to a greater degree than 20 degrees. If you don't feel that way then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I would be down for a possibly rating like mentioned above though I would like to see some other opinions first.
 
FuriousFieryFist said:
You know what? I really don't wanna wait another month for a reply from an admin. Are you fine with a "Possibly 8-A" rating?
Click to expand...
Not really, but I appreciate that you want this done and that the systems in place prevent you from doing that quickly. I'll sign off on possibly for the sake of general sanity.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Not really, but I appreciate that you want this done and that the systems in place prevent you from doing that quickly. I'll sign off on possibly for the sake of general sanity.
Click to expand...
And I appreciate that you actually took the time to evaluate this despite not liking anime.

With that in mind, how many admin agrees do we need to apply changes?
 
Given that this is a simple calc update (probably link this on the calc this is about, btw), we'll call it a mercy and say one staff member is sufficient, classifying this as a self-evident CRT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Arkenis
  • Locked
Tokyo Ghoul - Ghoul Page
Replies
27
Views
1K
Arkenis
Arkenis
V999
Rock Lee VS Kaneki (0-2-0)
Replies
16
Views
1K
DavidTPPM
DavidTPPM
Zefra3011
Tokyo Revengers: Fixing the scaling chain
Replies
18
Views
2K
DekuGlazer
DekuGlazer
MorrisHatesYou
  • Locked
Justice for Tokyo Revengers.
11 12 13
Replies
510
Views
18K
Zefra3011
Zefra3011
MorrisHatesYou
  • Locked
Tokyo Revengers verse upgrade
6 7 8
Replies
315
Views
11K
Deagonx
Deagonx
Back
Top