• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
KLOL506 said:
More often than not the damage to the ground is not shown or depicted except in the case of craters (But those are a different story) so that is ignored for the most part.
Click to expand...
It most cases it is shown
KLOL506 said:
Those two people are the explosion source tho, their punches cause it, they'd need to survive the recoil of their own punch + that of the other guy punching into their fist. Boxers train their hands first to survive their own punches for a reason.
Click to expand...
Yes they are at the explosion source, but that does not matter as said explosion source is outside of their bodies and the force of it is shared between both of them. Nobody scales people who clash with other people to two times their own AP in Dura which is the same case as what you are trying to argue
 
Don’t forget Garou also stated he wanted to draw out the full strength of Saitama while trying to defeat him.
 
ZillertheBucko said:
saitama wasn't going all out until genos died, that was when the first serious punch happened
what are you trying to say
Click to expand...
I saying that Saitama’s accelerated development/RPL kick in because of him fighting a opponent and after Geno’s death. My wording is because of “Not just Geno’s death”.

As a reminder, it didn’t say he was angered. Just that a massive surge of emotions occurred because of the fact he was fighting against Garou. Someone was arguably comparable to him even though Garou was getting destroyed during their fight.
 
theultimate5105 said:
It most cases it is shown
Click to expand...
And the damage to the ground in most cases where it doesn't involve craters, is often shown to be way too miniscule compared to the actual explosion radius itself.

theultimate5105 said:
Yes they are at the explosion source, but that does not matter as said explosion source is outside of their bodies and the force of it is shared between both of them. Nobody scales people who clash with other people to two times their own AP in Dura which is the same case as what you are trying to argue
Click to expand...
Except they are not punching against someone else, they are punching into each other. Garou would need to not only survive Saitama's punch but also the recoil of his own punch that he's trying to dish out to cancel out Saitama, and vice versa.
 
KLOL506 said:
And the damage to the ground in most cases where it doesn't involve craters, is often shown to be way too miniscule compared to the actual explosion radius itself.
Click to expand...
Yeah explosions are much bigger then the craters that they form
KLOL506 said:
Except they are not punching against someone else, they are punching into each other. Garou would need to not only survive Saitama's punch but also the recoil of his own punch that he's trying to dish out to cancel out Saitama, and vice versa.
Click to expand...
They are clashing here. They don’t multiply their durability 2x their feat because they are clashing
 
Shouldnt newtons third law already make them both scale to the full collision of their fists?
Their hands would be in the dead center of the full explosion at bear minimum and tank it so i dont see the point of this debate.
 
That Graph doesn't satisfy most of the Graphing Standards.
  • Titles/Captions
  • Any graph should be labeled with a short self-explanatory title.
  • Axes.
  • Both the horizontal and the vertical axis should be labeled with variable names and units. The major values should be clearly labeled with a meaningful numbering system (e.g. 1-2-5). The dependent variable should be plotted on the vertical axis and the independent variable on the horizontal axis.
  • Origin.
  • The origin should be zero. If the scaling of any axis prohibits the inclusion of the origin, a broken axis should indicate the offset from the origin.
  • Error Bars.
  • If the uncertainty of a parameter is known, it should be represented by an error bar.
  • Size and Clarity.
  • The range of the axes should be assigned such that most of the data (or the region of interest) occupies the whole graph.
 
Aachintya31 said:
That Graph doesn't satisfy most of the Graphing Standards.
  • Titles/Captions
  • Any graph should be labeled with a short self-explanatory title.
  • Axes.
  • Both the horizontal and the vertical axis should be labeled with variable names and units. The major values should be clearly labeled with a meaningful numbering system (e.g. 1-2-5). The dependent variable should be plotted on the vertical axis and the independent variable on the horizontal axis.
  • Origin.
  • The origin should be zero. If the scaling of any axis prohibits the inclusion of the origin, a broken axis should indicate the offset from the origin.
  • Error Bars.
  • If the uncertainty of a parameter is known, it should be represented by an error bar.
  • Size and Clarity.
  • The range of the axes should be assigned such that most of the data (or the region of interest) occupies the whole graph.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t even begin to address the argument in support of the graph as well as how this standard has many things that don’t relate to the graph by Murata in the slightest.

—First the titles are not needed for the graph since it’s explicitly noted what each axis is representing. (Power and time)​
— As discussed many times, units do not play a factor into the graph multiplier. You can plug in any units you want and the multiplier remains the same.​
— The origin, or zero starting point, is the Saitama and Garou from SP^2​
— Why in gods name are error bars important for this graph that Murata made specifically to depict the exponential increase in Saitama’s power in comparison to Garou.
— The size and clarity are perfectly fine for depicting the multiplier they received.​
 
RethPo said:
Shouldnt newtons third law already make them both scale to the full collision of their fists?
Their hands would be in the dead center of the full explosion at bear minimum and tank it so i dont see the point of this debate.
Click to expand...
No as that would violate the first law of thermodynamics making them both have the full force the the explosion hitting them
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
The thing is. I not sure if it is zero necessarily as it definitely not at zero during their fight, but that is a requirement anyway.
Click to expand...
? What do you mean? The graph is representative of Saitama’s expedient growth due to an uptake in emotions from Genos’ death and the subsequent fight that follows. Thus since the SP^2 happened at the very beginning of that emotional burst, the points that follow are how much stronger Saitama got after that point on. This is supported by how Garou and Saitama are each on the same point at the beginning, which is exactly what happened for the SP^2.
 
Maitreya said:
? What do you mean? The graph is representative of Saitama’s expedient growth due to an uptake in emotions from Genos’ death and the subsequent fight that follows. Thus since the SP^2 happened at the very beginning of that emotional burst, the points that follow are how much stronger Saitama got after that point on. This is supported by how Garou and Saitama are each on the same point at the beginning, which is exactly what happened for the SP^2.
Click to expand...
I was thinking of what the initial value they start at, but it isn’t that important for now
 
theultimate5105 said:
No as that would violate the first law of thermodynamics making them both have the full force the the explosion hitting them
Click to expand...
it's newton's third law dude, this isn't even debtable
the punches that caused the explosion directly collided and neither fist was hurt. Ez
 
Anyways, graph gets accepted when? there's actually 0 opposition to the graph rn, since the main opponent just said 1 sentence about it not having units, and got debunked instantly
I'd say this is fairly non-controversial.
 
KLOL506 said:
Recoil would be dura, then it goes around the circle of trading blows and damaging each other without clashing fists, and then the graph multiplier kicks in.
Click to expand...
The graph multiplers was after the feat and was referring to Saitama’s RPL outpacing Garou’s RPl. Both of them anyway.
 
KLOL506 said:
Yeah that's what I was talking about.
Click to expand...
Ah, okay. Welp, at least it doesn’t get needlessly over complicated like doing formula for a building’s weight.
Should just get to the point of mentioning the formula for a weight of building earlier, but oh well.
 
This goes wildly against our standards for multipliers.

An image such as a graph is, in fact, not a statement. I would consider stated power levels to be far more worthy of being considered a statement than this. I have no clue how y'all can read "Multipliers come from direct statements instead of being reasoned from something else" and argue "Okay but it's in the story so it's pretty much a statement" without being aware that you're just trying to create a loophole.

Far stronger statements, such as "Were we to rate a vampire's offenses at a hundred, our defenses are capped between ten and twenty" have been dismissed due to being imprecise and demonstrative.
 
Maitreya said:
—First the titles are not needed for the graph since it’s explicitly noted what each axis is representing. (Power and time)
Click to expand...
Perhaps ,Y-axis should be power by logic
However ,perhaps the problem lies in the X-axis ,The graph does not begin from the origin (i.e the point of intersection of X and Y axis ),instead it begins somewhere from negative x-axis as seen on the bottom left part of the graph which questions its validity , Considering X-axis to be time is an assumption which is contridictory as time cannot be negative.
 
Agnaa said:
Far stronger statements, such as "Were we to rate a vampire's offenses at a hundred, our defenses are capped between ten and twenty" have been dismissed due to being imprecise and demonstrative.
Click to expand...
To be honest that should be accepted as a possibility rating if its taking about individuals and not armies and equipment
 
Agnaa said:
This goes wildly against our standards for multipliers.

An image such as a graph is, in fact, not a statement. I would consider stated power levels to be far more worthy of being considered a statement than this. I have no clue how y'all can read "Multipliers come from direct statements instead of being reasoned from something else" and argue "Okay but it's in the story so it's pretty much a statement" without being aware that you're just trying to create a loophole.

Far stronger statements, such as "Were we to rate a vampire's offenses at a hundred, our defenses are capped between ten and twenty" have been dismissed due to being imprecise and demonstrative.
Click to expand...
Tbf, according to that thread, the 10x multipliers seems to being accepted while 5x multipliers was rejected.
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
Tbf, according to that thread, the 10x multipliers seems to being accepted while 5x multipliers was rejected.
Click to expand...
10x was accepted from another statement (the character, when they performed a certain feat, was not even a tenth as strong as they were at full power), while the 5x one based on the statement I brought up was rejected, for the reasons I gave.
 
Agnaa said:
10x was accepted from another statement (the character, when they performed a certain feat, was not even a tenth as strong as they were at full power), while the 5x one based on the statement I brought up was rejected, for the reasons I gave.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is from a different verse too. We going by in verse statements anyway as well. Not sure if it is compared to one verse to another like that way.
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
Yeah, that is from a different verse too. We going by in verse statements anyway as well. Not sure if it is compared to one verse to another like that way.
Click to expand...
Talking about the specifics of another verse is derailing. I've already commented about the relevance to how I evaluate this OPM statement. But we can continue discussion about the rest on your wall.
 
DontTalkDT said:
Aside from the inherent possibility of the graph just being a qualitative representation, instead of a quantitative one, the manga isn't clear on which stat this applies to at all. We require a clear statement that this is for attack power only. (honestly that the page says his abilities (plural) were rising exponentially gives me no confidence in that anyways)

So IMO needs more clarity to get accepted by our standards.
Click to expand...
This also mentioned by DonTalk as well.
 
Aachintya31 said:
Perhaps ,Y-axis should be power by logic
However ,perhaps the problem lies in the X-axis ,The graph does not begin from the origin (i.e the point of intersection of X and Y axis ),instead it begins somewhere from negative x-axis as seen on the bottom left part of the graph which questions its validity , Considering X-axis to be time is an assumption which is contridictory as time cannot be negative.
Click to expand...
No, not really. The dotted points are entirely on the positive x-axis which is again representative of Saitama and his explosive increase in power from the emotional burst. From then on the graph clearly shows the rise from that stagnated point.

A lot of the opposition to this seems entirely based on minute or standards not related to how the graph multiplier is being determined or used. It’s validity is perfectly legit considering all the various statements surrounding what the graph represents and it’s demonstration of the clear exponential rise in Saitama’s growth.
 
Maitreya said:
No, not really. The dotted points are entirely on the positive x-axis which is again representative of Saitama and his explosive increase in power from the emotional burst. From then on the graph clearly shows the rise from that stagnated point.
Click to expand...
Ok.
That's a reasonable point.
 
theultimate5105 said:
Yeah Recoil does not multiply it
You are basically saying that the force they take is more then they put out.
Click to expand...
It's not just his fist's recoil in the mix, it's Saitama's punch in the mix as well.

Garou's dura: Recoil of his own punch + Saitama's punch

Saitama's dura: Recoil of his own punch + Garou's punch

theultimate5105 said:
Also recoil isn’t actually fully equal to the force of a punch
Click to expand...
It's comparable to the point where the difference is negligible so there's that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Damage3245
  • Locked
One-Punch Man Mosquito Calculation Issue
Replies
15
Views
2K
Damage3245
Damage3245
Shadow_x007x
  • Locked
One-Punch Man: Saitama's normal punch
Replies
39
Views
2K
Shadow_x007x
Shadow_x007x
EnderLord8
  • Locked
One-Punch Man: The return of the consistency of normal punches
Replies
4
Views
719
Maverick_Zero_X
Maverick_Zero_X
LIFE_OF_KING
Minor addition for Saitama
Replies
18
Views
3K
Epiccheev
Epiccheev
Phoenks
  • Locked
The OPM Power Graph
2 3
Replies
82
Views
10K
Phoenks
Phoenks
Back
Top