- 4,630
- 1,615
- Thread starter
- #441
Why even assign the starting point for X at the Serious Punch Squared when it is clear after he say he will go full power
-
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.
Yes, it is the Power Graph chart calculation
- Thread starter HammerStrikes219
- Start date
- Status
- 4,630
- 1,615
- Thread starter
- #442
You just trying to assume we can get totally get 58x from a graph which it is not even official and kinda hurts it even more.
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,481
- 13,689
And we can conclude that the y starts at 0, due to the fact that it has no units for that to be worth doing for the graph
The point of having the y-axis start above 0 isn't due to having units, it's due to making it easier to see changes in the data if there's a large gap between the relevant values of y and y=0.
Essentially, it would be worth doing if the multiplier was decently less than 58x, but they still wanted to show its exponential nature.
The point of having the y-axis start above 0 isn't due to having units, it's due to making it easier to see changes in the data if there's a large gap between the relevant values of y and y=0.
Essentially, it would be worth doing if the multiplier was decently less than 58x, but they still wanted to show its exponential nature.
- 4,630
- 1,615
- Thread starter
- #444
Honestly, we have little to go by other than just using a graph and guesstimating the multiplier and extrapolate it from that graph. There is not even any statements about it outside of just exponential growth
- 13,903
- 5,404
Still unreasonable
throughout the moments in which Garou questions about Saitama’s AD, every time he copies him he’s completely unable to damage him, and is on the verge of being one shot killed by him
if the growth was “decently below 58 times” he wouldn’t have been fodderized over and over and over again by Saitama in any capacity
as such, I continue to hold that Saitama got no less than 58 times stronger by the end of the fight
- 13,903
- 5,404
hopefully we can just get some guidebook statement and be done with it later though
- 4,630
- 1,615
- Thread starter
- #447
Even though you are arguing that it starts by 58x when it obviously not the case as we can still see Garou getting thrash and thrash while Saitama’s exponential growth grows before the chart so yeah.
- 4,630
- 1,615
- Thread starter
- #448
Also even before the graph, Saitama was still trashing him when Saitama went “full power”
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,481
- 13,689
Different verses hold different thresholds for when someone would get one-shot by something. Sometimes 2x will turn a stomp around, sometimes 100x won't. That's why we don't have a universal standard multiplier for one-shotting or being unharmed, and that's why I don't find this post of yours convincing.
- 19,217
- 16,832
Just put him in unclear.
- 4,630
- 1,615
- Thread starter
- #451
Also antvasima’s stance on the matter is kinda unclear anyway since I not sure if he is agreeing with or disagreeing with the calc as he didn’t elaborate on that either too.!
- 19,217
- 16,832
Ant agrees from what I've seen.
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,481
- 13,689
No, Ant was very clearly in support of it.
- 4,630
- 1,615
- Thread starter
- #454
- 4,630
- 1,615
- Thread starter
- #455
This is what said from @Qawsedf234
- 4,630
- 1,615
- Thread starter
- #456
This is also this reply I have to consider too. It seems like his stance may have changed here too
- 167,679
- 76,256
I still think that it seems uncontroversial and harmless to just divide Saitama's power level's final y-axis height with the initial one, and then multiply his 4-A feat's energy output with that result.
- 4,630
- 1,615
- Thread starter
- #458
Don’t think that is possible since logically speak Saitama will already been stronger after he mentioned going full power/serious mode as before the serious punch clash, he was being causal about, then went full power after the serious punch clash afterwards.
- 4,630
- 1,615
- Thread starter
- #459
Also it is not power level in this case. We have zero mentions of power level and the graph is just the representation of Garou’s vs Saitama’s exponential growth
- 13,903
- 5,404
ok then, even though I would find it far beyond insanely unrealistic if it was anything less than a 9 times multiplier, especially considering saitama dominates Garou like 3 to 5 times in the span of that graph, and the gap would only get insanely bigger moments later due to exponential growth, I can concede that this line of reasoning alone wouldn't be enough, since it's technically not objective, and technically even if he got an 999 trillion to the quadrillionth power one shots above garou, it wouldn't be enough to assume even baseline 3-C, so you are correct here.
If the graph really was purely to show the fact that exponential growth occured, the statement would have been enough. Similarly, even if they wanted to go further by using the graph, but they wanted to use a non zero starting value at Y, there's no reason why they wouldn't have just let Saitama and Garou's lines touch zero, but they specifically leave a gap. Let me just bring up, the gap between the bottom line and the start of the lines serves 0 purpose, absolutely none, except for showing that Saitama and Garou were above this already arbitrary hypothetical value that would replace 0. The very clear intention, to me and likely many others, is to show a starting point for Saitama and Garou. For this to not matter, this graph would have to start at a non zero value (in mystery units) but also be a value lower than the sp^2. Why would they do this exactly? Well, it doesn't really serve a purpose, except for being a model specifically developed to destroy the idea of multipliers, which again, is not a priority of the author as we can most likely all agree.
I guess you've put more doubt on it than before, but like I said, I still think a "likely" rating should be given at least, since there is a technical loophole in which it could be a not 58x increase
- 4,630
- 1,615
- Thread starter
- #461
Which it is. Remember, the statement explicitly say Saitama’s growth was increasingly exponentially along with the graph. That was shown in the scans I provided from Chapter 168.
- 4,630
- 1,615
- Thread starter
- #462
Also furthermore, we can do far higher with accelerated development/RPL.
- 13,903
- 5,404
uh
I think you may have critically misunderstood my argument
- 167,679
- 76,256
I would appreciate some staff input about this issue.
- 4,630
- 1,615
- Thread starter
- #465
I think you overlook the fact that it was stated in the narration that Saitama’s growth was growing exponentially due to experiencing a intense amount of emotions and so on.
That part was made explicit clear
- 13,903
- 5,404
No I quite clearly directly acknowledged it, that was literally my argument
I have no clue what you're trying to argue rn.
- 4,630
- 1,615
- Thread starter
- #467
I guess, the other option is just put far higher with AD (Combat/RPL) as it stands we don’t have enough staff consensus for it and we gone through 5 pages. Not a few pages.
5 pages of ppl going back and forth regarding specific points.
- 13,903
- 5,404
I believe that would get the same result as the calc method
the current contention is wether or not the white line starts at 0. Opposition argues that it could start at a value higher than 0, thus rendering the calc useless, while I argue that due to the fact that there is already a gap between the first points and the bottom line, it would be illogical for them to make it not start at 0, while still making it not be the starting point of their lines.
- 11,555
- 10,672
I will try and bring more knowledgeable staff members to this thread. By knowledgeable, I mean those familiar with the OPM series.
@LordTracer @ByAsura @Emirp sumitpo @Armorchompy
@LordTracer @ByAsura @Emirp sumitpo @Armorchompy
- 4,630
- 1,615
- Thread starter
- #470
No, the original contention was if the multipler should been used or not which is 100% still in debate.
That was ongoing since page 1 from @DontTalkDT since that will mean the multiplier will have to been removed in this case.
GodlyCharmander
He/Him- 5,744
- 4,998
The initial value. The baseline of the line.
We don't know what value the 0, 0 coordinate represents, thus we cannot estimate the growth.
GodlyCharmander
He/Him- 5,744
- 4,998
You misunderstood my point entirely...
If you argue the baseline is SP^2, then we don't know the value of the initial dot.
If you argue the initial dot is >SP^2 then we don't know the value of the baseline.
Both cases mean we don't know the rate of growth...
Stating that they overlap does nothing to address that. Literally...
- 13,903
- 5,404
well I don’t know why you’d consider that we don’t know that the first dot is the sp^2, when we quite objectively know the x begins at Saitama’s upsurge of emotions, meaning the 58 times multiplier must have started at some point during the Garou fight, but as long as it was after genos’ desth then he’s 58 times stronger by the end of it regardless so, that’s not really up for debate
what is up for debate is when the y starts at
But I’ve already made my arguments known in my recent comments
- 13,903
- 5,404
To sum it up, I think there’s clear signs that in no way were they intending to make the y axis not start at zero
For one, if that were truly the case then they would have provided that information in the form of some numbers, even if it didn’t say what units were being used in said numbers. That combined with the fact that if the graph was for no other purpose than showing it were exponential growth, then it’d be pointless due to the existing statement of it being exponential, and there also would be no point in the gap between the first point and y=0, as the only information that it provides is to show that there was a starting point, as in to show that the serious punch squared didn’t start at 0 units. The model for the graph of the disagreeing side would be along the lines of having the y axis units increase exponentially (which would entirely make the idea of an exponential graph seem pretty god damn dumb) or just non linear, which is even worse since if it went like 1 2 5 7 8.5 8.82648 then it wouldn’t even be exponential to begin with lol
That, or saying the Y values don’t start at 0, and that they just added a pointless gap meant to convey no information
oh yeah, and they also just decided not to mention any of this to the reader? Either of these scenarios seem beyond improbable, and at worst it wouldn’t do anything to stop a “likely 3-C” rating
Lastly, I think everybody here is already aware that the “no units” counter argument is a thing of the past regardless of where you stand on the graph as a whole.
For one, if that were truly the case then they would have provided that information in the form of some numbers, even if it didn’t say what units were being used in said numbers. That combined with the fact that if the graph was for no other purpose than showing it were exponential growth, then it’d be pointless due to the existing statement of it being exponential, and there also would be no point in the gap between the first point and y=0, as the only information that it provides is to show that there was a starting point, as in to show that the serious punch squared didn’t start at 0 units. The model for the graph of the disagreeing side would be along the lines of having the y axis units increase exponentially (which would entirely make the idea of an exponential graph seem pretty god damn dumb) or just non linear, which is even worse since if it went like 1 2 5 7 8.5 8.82648 then it wouldn’t even be exponential to begin with lol
That, or saying the Y values don’t start at 0, and that they just added a pointless gap meant to convey no information
oh yeah, and they also just decided not to mention any of this to the reader? Either of these scenarios seem beyond improbable, and at worst it wouldn’t do anything to stop a “likely 3-C” rating
Lastly, I think everybody here is already aware that the “no units” counter argument is a thing of the past regardless of where you stand on the graph as a whole.
- 13,903
- 5,404
No doubt that all of these counter arguments are objectively possible, but they would require the creators of the chapter to have been incompetent people who love adding pointless things to graphs for no reason.
Edit: Anyways I think this thread should go on hold until the next chapter releases, the arc technically isn’t officially over and we could just get a game changing statement dropped out of nowhere
Edit: Anyways I think this thread should go on hold until the next chapter releases, the arc technically isn’t officially over and we could just get a game changing statement dropped out of nowhere
Last edited:
- 4,630
- 1,615
- Thread starter
- #476
Again, it is the other way around. Why assign a multiplier to a graph that wasn’t mean to taken too literally to begin with? Your arguments hold zero counters and reinforce the counter arguments.
- 4,630
- 1,615
- Thread starter
- #477
Also it will mean they actually done research on what a exponential graph does need along with a in-verse statement regarding a actual stated multipliers and is being accurate which isn’t the case.
Last edited:
GodlyCharmander
He/Him- 5,744
- 4,998
I didn't say that at all.
What I meant is
If we consider sp^2 to be where y starts, then we can't say what the first dot is. Because it cannot be both. It can't be where it starts and where it stops at 0.3x, this would imply the graph measures nothing.
But we're not considering this, we're considering the first dot to be >sp^2 which is a fact. But then we cannot say for absolute certain what the coordinate 0y is, because, as I said, a graph can start from any arbitrary point if said point fits the interest of the graph. For example, the point of interest of this graph is when the growth occurs.
I believe this is non definitive.
- 4,630
- 1,615
- Thread starter
- #479
Made some corrections, but I am getting sick of the fact no one bothered to directly address the counters against the multiplers being assigned to a calc that was guesstimate/calculated from a graph. Only intentionally dodging it because specific points they think will validated the calculated multipliers when it doesn’t necessarily mean it does inherently.
Last edited:
GodlyCharmander
He/Him- 5,744
- 4,998
So, "It cannot be anything other than 0, because no one said otherwise".
This is flawed for two simple reasons.
- No matter the metric, in no graph whatsoever is the number "0" the default starting point. Any real number point is.
- It doesn't satisfy the burden of proof.
It does. It provides the visual information of Saitama's growth, and the gap between the two. If the gap is measurable or not is irrelevant, because the narrative already show us the gap is quite high.
Of course we can't say "it has to be tens of times", gaps in fiction vary wildly, in some, a 2x gap is enough to speedblitz a person.
Of course, we get the same information through dialogue, but the graph alleviates and ease the understanding of what he is saying.
- Status
