Yes, it is the Power Graph chart calculation

[BOEGVELD]

Graphs can also have increases like this. Double the squares doesn't necessarily equate to double to units.

 

[Aachintya31]

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.

It should scale to their durability considering their fists were the epicentre of the explosion.Nobody derailed using other verse as examples.

 

[KLOL506]

It should scale to their durability considering their fists were the epicentre of the explosion.Nobody derailed using other verse as examples.

I thought the DBS schtick was not about combining the punching powers of Beerus and Goku but more so about Goku trying to nullify the massive shockwaves from his own punching power stemming from SSG and bringing down to a minimum via the cushioning effect to bring it under control

 

[Agnaa]

Graphs can also have increases like this. Double the squares doesn't necessarily equate to double to units.

I do have these sorts of concerns; graphs don't have the origin of the y-axis always be a value of zero, and graphs can use non-linear scales to make linear scaling like this unfeasible. But I find them ultimately less important than it, imo, going against our standards on Multipliers.

It should scale to their durability considering their fists were the epicentre of the explosion.Nobody derailed using other verses as examples.

I was not talking about any durability scaling. HammerStrikes was starting to get into the specifics of the example I brought up, so I moved that specific conversation elsewhere.

 

[Kachon123]

I love when people argue and debate without bringing other verses into it.

 

[Aachintya31]

I love when people argue and debate without bringing other verses into it.

that's no fun

 

[Qawsedf234]

Graphs can also have increases like this.

But those graphs don't show exponential growth curves like with the OPM example.

 

[Agnaa]

But those graphs don't show exponential growth curves like with the OPM example.

This counterargument is vapid. You can graph exponential curves without having the chart's origin at a value of 0.

 

[Qawsedf234]

You can graph exponential curves without having the chart's origin at a value of 0.

The comparison isn't the charts zero point as the first dot on the graph is above the X-Axis, I measured the ratio between that dot and everything else to get the numbers.

Also the fact that Garou and Saitama were increasing to the point where they easily one shot previous versions indicate the change difference is by a notable amount rather than a small incremental increase.

 

[Dienomite22]

Looks pretty straight forward, I agree with the usage of the graph.

 

[ImmortalDread]

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.

Agreed with you. Can we close this and apply changes?

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Graphs can also have increases like this. Double the squares doesn't necessarily equate to double to units.

I do have these sorts of concerns; graphs don't have the origin of the y-axis always be a value of zero, and graphs can use non-linear scales to make linear scaling like this unfeasible. But I find them ultimately less important than it, imo, going against our standards on Multipliers.

It should scale to their durability considering their fists were the epicentre of the explosion.Nobody derailed using other verses as examples.

I was not talking about any durability scaling. HammerStrikes was starting to get into the specifics of the example I brought up, so I moved that specific conversation elsewhere.

a graph like that differs wildly from the norm, and there's no identifiable cause for why that would be, and there's no actual evidence of it being in that way
especially with the statement of it being an exponential increase, followed by a normal looking exponential graph. If anything, the fact that it has no units shows that it's not that kind of graph, since obviously it would have to show the reader that the graph is irregular, otherwise it would be far more realistic to assume that the graph follows a more common template

 

[ZillertheBucko]

a graph like that differs wildly from the norm, and there's no identifiable cause for why that would be, and there's no actual evidence of it being in that way
especially with the statement of it being an exponential increase, followed by a normal looking exponential graph. If anything, the fact that it has no units shows that it's not that kind of graph, since obviously it would have to show the reader that the graph is irregular, otherwise it would be far more realistic to assume that the graph follows a more common template

basically, it's just a reverse burden of proof

 

[Aachintya31]

Agreed with you. Can we close this and apply changes?

What will be the changes?
3C Saitama and Atleast 4A garou?

 

[Agnaa]

The comparison isn't the charts zero point as the first dot on the graph is above the X-Axis, I measured the ratio between that dot and everything else to get the numbers.

That's an invalid way of getting answers if the chart's zero-point is off. If you try doing your method on this chart you will get invalid results.

EDIT: I just reproduced your method for the sample graph where the origin is not y=0, and got a wildly off answer.

Also the fact that Garou and Saitama were increasing to the point where they easily one shot previous versions indicate the change difference is by a notable amount rather than a small incremental increase.

I'm not disputing that Garou and Saitama grew stronger, I'm disputing your method of putting a number on it.

a graph like that differs wildly from the norm, and there's no identifiable cause for why that would be, and there's no actual evidence of it being in that way

I really don't want to debate this point since I mostly care about it going against our multiplier standards, but graphs where the origin isn't a value of zero is the norm, particularly when dealing with large numbers. You can't really see the difference if you've got numbers in the millions varying by tens of thousands if you've got the the 0-point included on the graph. When we've got joule numbers going far beyond that, it'd be pretty expected for the graph to be strange like that.

I don't care about that point as much as I do the reasoning here not being a statement, but I feel the need to correct this misunderstanding.

 

[BOEGVELD]

But those graphs don't show exponential growth curves like with the OPM example.

I'm moreso referring to the increases of units in the graph. Units from a graph can increase from 100 to 200, but also to 101. I.e. there's no way to measure a graph without units.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

I don't care about that point as much as I do the reasoning here not being a statement, but I feel the need to correct this misunderstanding.

the statement is what gives the graph validity, but even the graph by itself is effectively the same as a statement given that it was provided by the narrator. \

as for the rest, my point still applies. The graph could start at something other than zero, but there's no evidence of such, and without units present we are not going to assume that
same goes for the non linear increase, without units we do not have a reason to assume that, and this isn't a situation that calls for starting at a higher point. Had it stuck with a joule for each square then sure, the increase wouldn't be linear, but there's no practicality when the only unit we really have is that 4 squares is around as much as a serious punch squared. That's all the author gave, so that's all we need to know
if we needed to know that the graph was complete bullshit and unquantifiable then murata probably would've mentioned that in the form of a statement or units, in my honest opinion

 

[Agnaa]

the statement is what gives the graph validity, but even the graph by itself is effectively the same as a statement given that it was provided by the narrator.

That is clearly not what our Multipliers standards mean. If you think a picture counts as "a statement" then there would be no reason to say "Multipliers need to come from statements" because then literally everything in the verse would be "a statement".

If that's your interpretation of that rule, what do you think that rule's meant to exclude?

 

[theultimate5105]

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

Again Clashing does not mean your Dura is 2x your AP why would it be different here

It's comparable to the point where the difference is negligible so there's that.

No it’s really not
punching and getting punched are completely different

 

[ZillertheBucko]

the statement is what gives the graph validity, but even the graph by itself is effectively the same as a statement given that it was provided by the narrator.

That is clearly not what our Multipliers standards mean. If you think a picture counts as "a statement" then there would be no reason to say "Multipliers need to come from statements" because then literally everything in the verse would be 'a statement".

the narrator explicitly says it's an exponential increase, and then an exponential graph is shown, which confirms it
narrator says statement, graph is quite literally just a picture of the multiplier. This is not an issue of it challenging to standards, the statement directly proves the graph to be true, it's effectively no different from the narrator just saying "he got 58 times stronger"

 

[ZillertheBucko]

at the worst it's gray area in the standards, and even then there's absolutely 0 logical reason to not be fine with the graph

 

[Agnaa]

We do not allow statements of "They became much stronger!" to be combined with increases in video game statistics as able to qualify for multipliers. The statement has to contain the multiplier itself. We don't use the statement as justification to dig around in other material for some multiplier to pull out.

The Multipliers page says this. It says "Multipliers come from direct statements instead of being reasoned from something else." There is no direct statement of the exact multiplier here, it is being reasoned from a graph.

I am okay with treating Saitama/Garou as unquantifiably stronger, because that's what the statements and the graph imply, I just don't want to put that specific number on it.

 

[LIFE_OF_KING]

We do not allow statements of "They became much stronger!" do be combined with increases in video game statistics as able to qualify for multipliers

That would be a game mechanic, something that does not exist in a manga. Stat amplifiers in games have always been inconsistent

 

[Agnaa]

That would be a game mechanic, something that does not exist in a manga. Stat amplifiers in games have always been inconsistent

We also do not allow statements of "They became much stronger!" to be combined with increases in in-verse statistics for multipliers, unless those in-verse statistics are otherwise explained to work that way and are shown to do so consistently.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

We do not allow statements of "They became much stronger!" do be combined with increases in video game statistics as able to qualify for multipliers. The statement has to contain the multiplier itself. We don't use the statement as justification to dig around in other material for some multiplier to pull out.

The Multipliers page says this. It says "Multipliers come from direct statements instead of being reasoned from something else." There is no direct statement of the exact multiplier here, it is being reasoned from a graph.

Game mechanics arguments are not going to be brought up in a manga discussion as an argument. Game mechanics are often inconsistent, the graph being accepted would have absolutely 0 inconsistency with the fight itself.

"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. "
When you look at the full quote, you can see that it is referring to a situation like this with power levels of energy, a case not comparable to graphs in the opm verse without power levels or anything like that
on the other hand, we very clearly showed earlier in the thread that the graph is referring to strength, strength and nothing but strength.
"Strength" is not a universal energy system, and I really trust that I don't have to explain the rest of why it's not comparable to db power levels

 

[Agnaa]

If you think the one example provided is all it's meant to exclude, despite it just being an example of the more general need for direct statements, then I can't think of anything I could say to convince you otherwise.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

If you think the one example provided is all it's meant to exclude, despite it just being an example of the more general need for direct statements, then I can't think of anything I could say to convince you otherwise.

it uses power levels as an example due to it being easy for inconsistency to appear with such systems
this is the equivalent saying that a clear image of a multiplier (which is also directly supported by a statement) on top of it being supported by the fight itself, and the scaling between the garou and saitama lines also being completely consistent with how the fight played out, on top of it being provided directly by the narrator, would be unacceptable as an implied statement, but Garou saying "he's around 58 times stronger!" would be infintely more valuable

 

[Agnaa]

Yes, that is actually what I am saying.

We want precision with our ratings. If there's no precision, we'll just slap a "higher" or "far higher" on it and call it a day, and a chart showing what exponential growth looks like isn't precise enough to be interpreted as a literal 1-to-1 scale of the power increase, having y=0 at the origin.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

it uses power levels as an example due to it being easy for inconsistency to appear with such systems
this is the equivalent saying that a clear image of a multiplier (which is also directly supported by a statement) on top of it being supported by the fight itself, and the scaling between the garou and saitama lines also being completely consistent with how the fight played out, on top of it being provided directly by the narrator, would be unacceptable as an implied statement, but Garou saying "he's around 58 times stronger!" would be infintely more valuable

but yknow what if it did end up being restricted by the standards somehow (doubt people will actually agree to that) then we could always just get help making a very minor update to multiplier standards for an obvious grey area situation which the multipliers page was not intended to cover
opm is a big enough verse after all

 

[BOEGVELD]

on top of it being provided directly by the narrator, would be unacceptable as an implied statement

Because it's not an ''implied statement''. Without any units there's no way to properly measure the graph.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Because it's not an ''implied statement''. Without any units there's no way to properly measure the graph.

ok go back and read the debunks to that earlier in the thread
I don't have the patience for this

 

[BOEGVELD]

I've read it but it doesn't debunk anything.

 

[Agnaa]

but yknow what if it did end up being restricted by the standards somehow (doubt people will actually agree to that) then we could always just get help making a very minor update to multiplier standards for an obvious grey area situation which the multipliers page was not intended to cover
opm is a big enough verse after all

That is definitely an option.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

but yknow what if it did end up being restricted by the standards somehow (doubt people will actually agree to that) then we could always just get help making a very minor update to multiplier standards for an obvious grey area situation which the multipliers page was not intended to cover
opm is a big enough verse after all

That is definitely an option.

Provided it get approved by calculation and staff members too.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Provided it get approved by calculation and staff members too.

it would have nothing to do with the calc group

 

[HammerStrikes219]

The comparison isn't the charts zero point as the first dot on the graph is above the X-Axis, I measured the ratio between that dot and everything else to get the numbers.

Also the fact that Garou and Saitama were increasing to the point where they easily one shot previous versions indicate the change difference is by a notable amount rather than a small incremental increase.

Tbf, it is guesstimates on those multipliers as the calc guessing it from a graph with statements too.

Edit: Also didn’t you get the multiplers from the graph itself?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

it would have nothing to do with the calc group

It does when the multipliers get guesstimated in a calc especially in a case such as this.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

but yknow what if it did end up being restricted by the standards somehow (doubt people will actually agree to that) then we could always just get help making a very minor update to multiplier standards for an obvious grey area situation which the multipliers page was not intended to cover
opm is a big enough verse after all

That is definitely an option.

If I not mistaken, the calc didn’t use a official statement of the 58x IIRC as we don’t have any direct stated multiplers. Only that we get the multiplers from the graph itself. There was a discussion about this in the OPM discussion thread IIRC, but I have to check.

 

[KLOL506]

No it’s really not
punching and getting punched are completely different

I thought you were talking about tanking the recoil of your own punch, not the punch of the other guy.

 

[Agnaa]

If I not mistaken, the calc didn’t use a official statement of the 58x IIRC as we don’t have any direct stated multiplers. Only that we get the multiplers from the graph itself. There was a discussion about this in the OPM discussion thread IIRC, but I have to check.

This is irrelevant to what's currently being discussed here, so I'll respond on your wall.