• 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.

Wrath of Chibaku Tensei vs Chibaku Tensei 3245

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arc7Kuroi

Arc7Kuroi

18,936
27,726
Introduction
Wrath is far too lazy to make threads on his own, and I have to be his proxy. So there are two Pain CT calcs: @Wrath_Of_Itachi version and @Damage3245 version. I believe Wrath's is slightly better and I'll explain why.

Why Wrath
There are two reasons I believe Wrath's calc is currently superior.

1) Wrath chooses to pixel scale a mountain that isn't visibly distorted by the effects of the Chibaku Tensei. Wrath's mountain has no adverse markings on it indicative of any kind of distortion from the battle between Pain and Naruto or the CT itself. Meanwhile, Damage's mountain, and pm all the mountain lining the edge of the CT crater all have visible distortions indicating that they have been changed in some way. When choosing which mountain we should base our scaling off of, I believe a mountain that hasn't been unnaturally altered by the variety of jutsu used in the fight would be most preferable.

2) Wrath gets the volume of rock from the crater itself instead of getting the rock from the sphere. The reason this is important is because the CT jutsu condenses rock around it, crushing it together, increasing its density to form a perfect sphere. This means that the CT sphere would be denser than the natural laying rock in the ground. Therefore, if we are using a naturally occurring rock density (as the calcs use) it is more correct to get the mass from the crater's volume, as the crater was not made more compact and thus more dense. Basically, this prevents us from accidentally underestimating the mass of the CT sphere.

Conclusion
For those two reasons, I think we should implement Wrath's calc as a replacement to Damage's calc. In conclusion,
fetchimage

REVISED CALC

Agree: CLOVER, DAMAGE (REVISED CALC), MITCH (REVISED CALC)
Neutral:
Disagree:
 
Last edited:
I agree with Wrath's calc as well

Using the hole to measure how much rock is in it is the better option

I also noticed damage actually missed a little bit of the rocks diameter with his pixel scaling

HOWEVER

Damage's calculation in my opinion is better for scaling
Why?
First of all I disagree with the fact that the mountains are distorted in any way
We see that even directly next to the chasm the trees in the frame are completely untouched, as well as the roads
So the notion that the mountains themselves were altered in any way when trees and roads were unaffected near ground zero seems a stretch

Secondly this is using a mountain far further in the background, a smaller one at that
As opposed to Damage which is, while not perfectly parallel with the crater, still leagues closer to the actual hole than the ones in the background
It's well known that scaling objects that are not relatively close to the object you are trying to scale usually results in far higher sizes than in reality

Therefore Damage's scaling should be used

So Wrath's method should be used with Damage's method of size scaling

Best of both worlds
 
I kinda would have liked to have been notified about this....

Will respond when I can.
 
Shmeatywerbenmanjenson said:
Damage's calculation in my opinion is better for scaling
Why?
First of all I disagree with the fact that the mountains are distorted in any way
We see that even directly next to the chasm the trees in the frame are completely untouched, as well as the roads
So the notion that the mountains themselves were altered in any way when trees and roads were unaffected near ground zero seems a stretch

Secondly this is using a mountain far further in the background, a smaller one at that
As opposed to Damage which is, while not perfectly parallel with the crater, still leagues closer to the actual hole than the ones in the background
It's well known that scaling objects that are not relatively close to the object you are trying to scale usually results in far higher sizes than in reality
Click to expand...
@Shmeatywerbenmanjenson Actually covered the important points so I'll second their post.

The mountain that Wrath uses is further away in the background making it inherently less reliable for a direct pixelscaling comparison.
 
Damage3245 said:
I kinda would have liked to have been notified about this....

Will respond when I can.
Click to expand...
I forget blue names can’t actually ping my b.


Damage3245 said:
@Shmeatywerbenmanjenson Actually covered the important points so I'll second their post.

The mountain that Wrath uses is further away in the background making it inherently less reliable for a direct pixelscaling comparison.
Click to expand...
yeah I’m asking wrath if he could choose a better mountain as we speak
 
Damage3245 said:
Fair... But why not use the mountain I used?
Click to expand...
Well when I talked to Wrath he didn’t like it cuz it appeared that the mountain was distorted from the CT. Me personally, idrc, if we wanna go your mountain + Wrath’s crater, and merge the calcs. Im chill with that
 
Arc7Kuroi said:
Well when I talked to Wrath he didn’t like it cuz it appeared that the mountain was distorted from the CT. Me personally, idrc, if we wanna go your mountain + Wrath’s crater, and merge the calcs. Im chill with that
Click to expand...
Okay.
 
@Arc7Kuroi; the new calc looks mostly fine except for the depth of the crater used. Instead of using the far side of the crater, you should be measuring down from the red midline. Just like how the yellow line is measuring up from it.
 
Damage3245 said:
@Arc7Kuroi; the new calc looks mostly fine except for the depth of the crater used. Instead of using the far side of the crater, you should be measuring down from the red midline. Just like how the yellow line is measuring up from it.
Click to expand...
correct me if im wrong but wouldent it be more arcurate to use the purple line for the depth
 
Damage3245 said:
@Arc7Kuroi; the new calc looks mostly fine except for the depth of the crater used. Instead of using the far side of the crater, you should be measuring down from the red midline. Just like how the yellow line is measuring up from it.
Click to expand...
So the thing with that, and the reason I think it measured from the top edge that we see to as far down as we can see is because we dont truly see the bottom. It goes down further than what we can actually see. So Wrath measured the top edge we can see, and just measured down that wall. Does that make sense?
 
Arc7Kuroi said:
So the thing with that, and the reason I think it measured from the top edge that we see to as far down as we can see is because we dont truly see the bottom. It goes down further than what we can actually see. So Wrath measured the top edge we can see, and just measured down that wall. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
yea this was my thought process when looking at it.
 
uchct0tk.jpg


I'm also thinking we use the thick yellow line, since that is the most of the cylinder wall we actually see.

Damage you can give your thoughts on that.
 
DemonGodMitchAubin said:
The OP is fine and makes sense
Click to expand...
You're kosher with this recalc then?

vsbattles.fandom.com

Wrath is a big baby

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

Based on this suggestion:
Shmeatywerbenmanjenson said:
I agree with Wrath's calc as well

Using the hole to measure how much rock is in it is the better option

I also noticed damage actually missed a little bit of the rocks diameter with his pixel scaling

HOWEVER

Damage's calculation in my opinion is better for scaling
Why?
First of all I disagree with the fact that the mountains are distorted in any way
We see that even directly next to the chasm the trees in the frame are completely untouched, as well as the roads
So the notion that the mountains themselves were altered in any way when trees and roads were unaffected near ground zero seems a stretch

Secondly this is using a mountain far further in the background, a smaller one at that
As opposed to Damage which is, while not perfectly parallel with the crater, still leagues closer to the actual hole than the ones in the background
It's well known that scaling objects that are not relatively close to the object you are trying to scale usually results in far higher sizes than in reality

Therefore Damage's scaling should be used

So Wrath's method should be used with Damage's method of size scaling

Best of both worlds
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Damage3245
Ben 10 - Questionable Armadrillo Calc
2 3
Replies
91
Views
3K
Celestial_Scaler25
Celestial_Scaler25
KingTempest
  • Locked
Naruto: Chibaku Tensei LS Revision
Replies
20
Views
2K
KingTempest
KingTempest
Arc7Kuroi
  • Locked
Sealing Away Naruto's 5-B in a Chibaku Tensei
12 13 14
Replies
548
Views
40K
LordTracer
LordTracer
Samlex1234
Pain chibaku Tensei
Replies
8
Views
2K
Tatsumi504
Tatsumi504
GraveDigger84
How to calc a character shaking a mountain?
Replies
6
Views
906
GraveDigger84
GraveDigger84
Back
Top