- 4,781
- 1,675
- Thread starter
- #161
The main topic was about the calculation getting accepted in regards to multiplers and mathematical wise. You can even see the calculation trying to get a set multipler for it too anyway.
-
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
- 20,619
- 17,619
Well the point isn't debunked, but contested. Debunked would be like "If you zoom in really closely you can see tiny numbers on the Y-Axis that shows the graph amounts" or something.
The argument isn't that. Its that at the moment the AP that they have is split between the two of them since its presumed they equally contributed to the explosion. The argument is that since they punched each other and were at the epicenter of the explosion, they should instead scale to the full value of the feat rather than the standard half and half like with MHA or something. Its not 2x the feat its just saying they shouldn't be 0.5x the feat.
- 3,881
- 1,115
The thing is even at the epicenter they are still at opposite sides of it, which means they cannot take the fully force of it as half of it goes to one of them and the other half goes to the other one
- 20,619
- 17,619
Well the explosion was either formed when they clashed fists or when they hit each other. Meaning in either situation the explosion forms on the contact point or on their bodies.
- 3,881
- 1,115
Yes it forms on their bodies however that doesn’t mean that they take all of it
Just like the ground does not take all of the force of a bomb detonated on it their fists wouldn’t take all of the force of the explosion
- 3,781
- 4,081
3C Saitama and Garou. Considering they’re scaling to the full serious punch and not half of it.
Ayewale
He/Him- 1,070
- 789
Ziller seems to just be ignoring any attempt at criticizing this calculation. Spamming "okay, so accepted when?" while you've managed to convince literally none of the opposition (many of whom are pretty knowledgeable members and are making good points in their own right) is not only rude and annoying but counterproductive.
As it stands, I don't see any reason why the graph isn't too precise/demonstrative to be accepted. I am at least 110% sure the author's intent was not to create a mathematically accurate graph that charts their canonical power level, because if that was his intent the graph would have units and numbers. Even if you were to argue that you don't need units for a graph, you can't get over the fact that this is definitely not supposed to be taken literally. As said earlier, there have been far, far more direct statements that have been ignored.
As it stands, I don't see any reason why the graph isn't too precise/demonstrative to be accepted. I am at least 110% sure the author's intent was not to create a mathematically accurate graph that charts their canonical power level, because if that was his intent the graph would have units and numbers. Even if you were to argue that you don't need units for a graph, you can't get over the fact that this is definitely not supposed to be taken literally. As said earlier, there have been far, far more direct statements that have been ignored.
- 13,903
- 5,405
Until Agnaa came there were no valid opposing arguments, and the majority of people were in agreement.
they wouldn't bother researching the exact amount of joules it would take to make the big hole in the galaxy, the graph without units effectively creates a multiplier, but also is showing the power dynamic between Garou and Saitama's AD, so there's more to it than just it being there for power levels
but the units being there means nothing regarding multipliers, since it was quite clearly a 58 times multiplier being shown with or without units. In fact that's really the entire basis for calcing, author makes impressive looking display without knowing the exact power of it, and the calc group accepts a value more exact than the writer intended.
if the author's intent was not to create a show of their increase, they would have just left it at the statement of exponential power increase, instead of making a (particularly consistent) graph with squares on it that just are there to give a multiplier
There's absolutely 0 grounds to say this on. It's not an argument.
such as? I guarantee you there are case by case reasons why each statement was ignored, so this really means nothing until you bring specific examples.
- 13,903
- 5,405
Also, something of a side-rant, at the end of the day this isn't a site where "convincing the opposition" is really a condition
anybody can just say "I disagree" regardless of what people say, which happens quite often, so after a while there's really no point in caring about if the opponent agrees with you or not if you just have a numbers advantage over them. That's just how this place works honestly.
- 2,299
- 401
You can infer title/captions and axes, the origin is there (just because the line doesn't cross it doesn't mean it isn't defined), error bars are completely irrelevant (there isn't a margin of error when it's a statement in the narration anyway lmao) and size/clarity is both already there and completely unneeded.
Dunno if you changed your opinion on this already, didn't notice there were two pages and I can't be arsed to read through the whole thing rn.
- 2,127
- 1,726
I agree cause i dont really care about the site standards.
- 13,903
- 5,405
honestly the standards thing seems more like a petty and extreme loophole instead of it actually be intended to stop graphs like this
it's the equivalent of that one tiny place that it's legally impossible to go to jail for murder in
it's the equivalent of that one tiny place that it's legally impossible to go to jail for murder in
- 2,299
- 401
What is your justification for it not being literal? We've basically already discussed that "no units" has no bearing on how literal it's supposed to be so I don't see that as an adequate reason.
As for reasoning for the graph being literal the writer makes an effort to precisely describe how power levels "match up" at different points in time, showing that they are actively attempting to make the graph match the circumstances of the story as accurately as possible.
I think a number being plotted on a graph is of equal strength as a statement to a number expressed in English.
Also, I don't think we should approach our entire discussion on this from the basis of a rushed and low effort comment made by the user Andy Trenom. Mods such as Bambu were also curious about her conclusion there and weren't really given a great response (practically just a repeat of what was previously said).
You have mentioned verses which can have statements referring to power levels converted to straight AP, can you detail their differences from OPM? I believe that would provide us with a better framework for discussing this.
Last edited:
- 4,781
- 1,675
- Thread starter
- #174
Not really, the standards for multiplers was implemented before this stuff. So it is technically a loophole in the sense the calculation is only trying to find a set multipler from using the graph.
Also we don’t even know if it is capped at 58x since it was rising even after that graph so again, that arguably been a high ball or a low ball ie. the latter I will think.
- 13,903
- 5,405
Well of course it’s a low ball, since it would have doubled again and again in a few moments and gotten to like 1000 or something by the end of the fight
but we’re not trying to use the graph as the exact formula of his growth, as much as I’d like that
- 4,781
- 1,675
- Thread starter
- #176
Technically the calculation made by @Qawsedf234 is proof of that. Qaw is the one who set that multipler to x58 using the graph for it.
Edit: Also not to mention, I don’t see this as debunking the opposition as actually making help their point as well.
Last edited:
- 4,781
- 1,675
- Thread starter
- #177
Also TLDR for those reading this:
It is technically the standards of multiplers being applied against a specific calc that did get a multipler from a graph. Also multiple statements referred to the RPL kicking in as well, but also never have a stated multiplier being stated since the RPl/AD was exponential to say the least along with passive growth.
The opposition against the calc is arguing it shouldn’t been used given how the multipler was only provided by a graph and doesn’t have a in verse statement or WOG statement to clarify what the actual multiplier is when the points made from the refutating party that tries to counter the opposition’s points of it shouldn’t been used based on multiplier has failed to address the fact the only reason why we got 58x was from attempting to calculate it from a graph anyway.
It is technically the standards of multiplers being applied against a specific calc that did get a multipler from a graph. Also multiple statements referred to the RPL kicking in as well, but also never have a stated multiplier being stated since the RPl/AD was exponential to say the least along with passive growth.
The opposition against the calc is arguing it shouldn’t been used given how the multipler was only provided by a graph and doesn’t have a in verse statement or WOG statement to clarify what the actual multiplier is when the points made from the refutating party that tries to counter the opposition’s points of it shouldn’t been used based on multiplier has failed to address the fact the only reason why we got 58x was from attempting to calculate it from a graph anyway.
Last edited:
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,781
- 14,177
I think a number being plotted on a graph is of equal strength as a statement to a number expressed in English.
If you consider it equal to that, then it shouldn't be allowed, as we don't give multipliers for stated statistics/power levels.
You have mentioned verses which can have statements referring to power levels converted to straight AP, can you detail their differences from OPM? I believe that would provide us with a better framework for discussing this.
I can't since I don't know any of those verses, but perhaps someone else could.
If you consider it equal to that, then it shouldn't be allowed, as we don't give multipliers for stated statistics/power levels.
You have mentioned verses which can have statements referring to power levels converted to straight AP, can you detail their differences from OPM? I believe that would provide us with a better framework for discussing this.
I can't since I don't know any of those verses, but perhaps someone else could.
- 13,903
- 5,405
Opm doesn’t use a power level system, so it’s just the equivalent of saying “his strength increased 58 times” which is very different from power level increasing that much
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,781
- 14,177
I don't think it is the equivalent of that. I think it's just a visual representation of exponential growth. I don't think the artist was required to pull up a very specific exponential chart with a very specific growth rate to match the exact canonical growth in Saitama's power so that someone could measure it out and find out that Saitama got 58x stronger. I think they just drew an exponential chart and called it a day.
A statement just saying "Saitama got 58x stronger" would show that far more thought was put into it, imo.
- 13,903
- 5,405
Well if it was just for showing that it’s exponential growth then as I said, a statement alone would suffice
the reason why 58 times stronger wouldn’t make sense to be stated is that it’s an arbitrary value in his endless accelerated development, he’d be like 100 times stronger before you could finish the sentence “he got 58 times stronger within the span of the fight”
- 3,781
- 4,081
Alright do we have a count on who agrees and disagrees with using the graph?
Ayewale
He/Him- 1,070
- 789
While I agree that the calc itself doesn't need numbers to be valid, accepting it as a valid interpretation of power levels in-universe is where this strikes me the wrong way. In fact, you took the words out of my mouth
Exactly as I said, the OPM author didn't intend for the graph to be literal, he was simply using it as a vague display of their powers, and would have made it more exact if he was trying to be literal. It seems like you're well-aware the OPM author was not trying to be literal.
This was posted a while ago, never debunked by anyone so far and you ignored it.
This is not how the wiki works. CRTs and calcs being accepted are a lot more of a matter than just a numbers game, otherwise most of the top verses on this wiki would look like garbage because the one sensible mod in a thread was outnumbered by 3-4 guys who joined the wiki that same day (and I can provide examples of that if you really want it). Convincing other people isn't a win-condition, but if you're going to spam 'so, accepted when' as if the discussion has been resolved, generally you should have actually resolved the discussion first. Either way, though, you're not gonna win by appealing to the mob, and just because horde victories have happened doesn't mean they should.
My reasoning for the graph being literal is pretty simple: a literal graph would have units, clearly stated captions and fit more graphing standards. As Ziller herself has admitted, the author did not make the graph an exact measure, and was using it as more of a visual aid. If the graph was truly intended to show Saitama reaching galactic levels of power, don't you think he would explicitly made it clear with notes or values on the graph instead of leaving 0.00001% of his fanbase to figure it out?
I think the burden of proof is on the opposition to prove why it is literal, since that is what is being proposed by the OP. The only discussion on units has been whether it's relevant to the calc being useable or not (I think the calc's fine). The response to "why do we take this very shaky graph that barely meets standards that we acknowledge is mostly for display as literal?" has mostly been "why not?" instead of actual proof.
- 13,903
- 5,405
- 13,903
- 5,405
The future is now
No doubt the graph is a literal representation, but it’s no different than the author not knowing the exact Joule value of him destroying solar systems
Author makes impressive looking thing, and then leaves people like us to calc the precision of it.
like I said, case by case
I agree that horde wins are bullshit but all I’m saying is, I’m not actually obligated to convince my opponent here, it’s just how the game is played
Depending on the units, it could have even resulted in wank or been too low to the point of it being an anti feat. A graph with no units was a good choice here since it purely exists as a multiplier, not to show how strong Saitama is, but rather to show how much his power multiplied, since it’s a graph about his growth not about his current power technically speaking
Not a power level. There’s no power level system in Opm, so it’s not even valid.
Never said it wasn’t literal, there’s a different between it being literal and the author knowing the precision
No doubt the graph is a literal representation, but it’s no different than the author not knowing the exact Joule value of him destroying solar systems
Author makes impressive looking thing, and then leaves people like us to calc the precision of it.
A statement of questionable reliability by a non narrator, as well as it being quite blatantly imprecise, none of such flaws apply to the graph
like I said, case by case
Of course admins can handle majority rule, but admins also end up saying wrong things a lot, and then in a staff thread it just once again is majority rule, but with staff instead of normal members
I agree that horde wins are bullshit but all I’m saying is, I’m not actually obligated to convince my opponent here, it’s just how the game is played
Murata doesnt know how many joules it takes to get our galaxy level value
Depending on the units, it could have even resulted in wank or been too low to the point of it being an anti feat. A graph with no units was a good choice here since it purely exists as a multiplier, not to show how strong Saitama is, but rather to show how much his power multiplied, since it’s a graph about his growth not about his current power technically speaking
Because he went through the effort of making it instead of just leaving it with the exponential statement. Also because it is perfectly consistent with the fight
- 2,299
- 401
You started arguing from the perspective of "power level graphs aren't statements" so I responded to that. We can obviously get into "power level comparisons vs multipliers" (and I think your evidence for them being super distinct isn't particularly compelling for reasons I've already stated), but that's not what I was responding to with that comment.
Well then, if the only basis you can provide for your main argument are extrapolating two, short comments an admin made on a barren thread then I think you are in desperate need of a better framework for discussing this. As it stands, I talked to the mod you're using as an authority and she said the pressing thing was not the "my strength has increased from 2 to 100" vs "my strength has increased by 50 times" thing in the case of OPM, but more whether or not the graph was fully literal.
Last edited:
- 2,299
- 401
Ziller was being weird as **** if he said that and I do not associate with him /s.
Anyway, you know you could apply the "why didn't the author make everything super exact if he actually wanted to show the character reaching a certain level of power" argument for any calc ever. For instance: "if the statement that X character could vaporise a human was truly intended to show X character reaching the ability to release 311 megajoules of energy, don't you think he would have explicitly made it clear with the exact value of 311 megajoules already instead of leaving 0.00001% of his fanbase to figure it out?". That's the logic that argument would use.
So, putting that argument aside, I don't think "why not" is necessarily an invalid response. It's not an "incomplete" graph if what each increment on either axis represents is spelled out so incredibly clearly that there is no requirement for them to be placed on the graph. If someone made a graph but didn't specify units and went on to specify those units on another page I wouldn't call that graph "incomplete" and I definitely wouldn't call it not literal.
However if you still think your opponents have the burden of proof for whatever reason, I did give you an analysis of authorial intent in my previous comment. The graph doesn't contradict any technical detail in the story either, which, let's be honest, probably would be the case if the graph was simply there to express one concept instead of what was exactly happening.
Last edited:
- 13,903
- 5,405
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,781
- 14,177
You started arguing from the perspective of "power level graphs aren't statements" so I responded to that. We can obviously get into "power level comparisons vs multipliers" (and I think your evidence for them being super distinct isn't particularly compelling for reasons I've already stated), but that's not what I responding to with that comment.
Sometimes I think it's easier to work within the framework of the person I'm talking to instead of my own. Because otherwise there's not much to say. You think that a graph showing an exponential line is as good as the exact numbers you pixel-scale off of it being stated, I don't. If I just try to talk about things on that level there's no conversation.
I guess I can bring up the point I've already brought up of how "Multipliers need to come from statements, instead of being inferred from something else" seems like it should have "pixel-scaling values from a graph" land under the latter portion, but that hasn't been convincing for whatever reason, so idk.
Well then I think the foundations of your main argument are based on extrapolating two comments an admin made on a barren thread then I think you are in desperate need of a better framework for discussing this. As it stands, I talked to the mod you're using as an authority and she said the pressing thing was not the "my strength has increased from 2 to 100" vs "my strength has increased by 50 times" thing in the case of OPM, but moreso if the graph was fully literal.
I also think that's an issue. We're extrapolating values from a graph, rather than having a clear statement of them getting a certain multiplier stronger. If there was a statement saying "The character's getting exponentially stronger" with an annotated graph labeling certain points as "2x, 4x, 8x, 16x, 32x!, 64x!!, 128x!!!" I'd be okay with using it, as we'd actually be directly given the numbers.
Sometimes I think it's easier to work within the framework of the person I'm talking to instead of my own. Because otherwise there's not much to say. You think that a graph showing an exponential line is as good as the exact numbers you pixel-scale off of it being stated, I don't. If I just try to talk about things on that level there's no conversation.
I guess I can bring up the point I've already brought up of how "Multipliers need to come from statements, instead of being inferred from something else" seems like it should have "pixel-scaling values from a graph" land under the latter portion, but that hasn't been convincing for whatever reason, so idk.
Well then I think the foundations of your main argument are based on extrapolating two comments an admin made on a barren thread then I think you are in desperate need of a better framework for discussing this. As it stands, I talked to the mod you're using as an authority and she said the pressing thing was not the "my strength has increased from 2 to 100" vs "my strength has increased by 50 times" thing in the case of OPM, but moreso if the graph was fully literal.
I also think that's an issue. We're extrapolating values from a graph, rather than having a clear statement of them getting a certain multiplier stronger. If there was a statement saying "The character's getting exponentially stronger" with an annotated graph labeling certain points as "2x, 4x, 8x, 16x, 32x!, 64x!!, 128x!!!" I'd be okay with using it, as we'd actually be directly given the numbers.
- 2,299
- 401
"Exactly as I said, the OPM author didn't intend for the graph to be literal, he was simply using it as a vague display of their powers, and would have made it more exact if he was trying to be literal. It seems like you're well-aware the OPM author was not trying to be literal."
Also, lol, if that's what you were using to accuse Ziller then yeah, that just falls under the "all calcs would have this issue" thing.
Also, lol, if that's what you were using to accuse Ziller then yeah, that just falls under the "all calcs would have this issue" thing.
Ayewale
He/Him- 1,070
- 789
Nein. Most calcs aren't graphs, and mots graph calcs fit the graphing standards much better than what we're currently talking about. We don't say "this wasn't the author's intention" for other calcs because in 99% of other feats, the author's intentions don't matter because we're just analysing the context of the feat (although it is definitely brought up on occasion). But this is not a feat that can be measured without author intent, it's a graph that lives and dies by authorial intent.
The power level bit is just useless semantics. Okay, they don't have power levels, they just have measurements of power. Thanks for the distinction.
Also, you did say it wasn't literal. You said he made a 'display' that he didn't know 'the exact power of'. Hence, he wasn't literally making Saitama Galaxy level. Trying to evaluate this graph like it's a feat is also quite wrong for the reasons above. It's not meant to be taking as a precise measurement, otherwise he would have made it precise because it's a graph, it makes no sense that it was supposed to be an exact representation of their powers while not even having units. For most feats we can ignore some level of authorial intent but if we have to start interpreting visual aids as 100% scientific material then it's a bit of a reach.
How is the statement Agnaa providd imprecise? It seems like you're just dismissing that statement because. 'Were we to rate a vampire's offenses at a hundred, we would rate our defenses between ten and twenty' is as precise as it's going to get outside of expositing the AP of a vampire. It is far more direct and precise than a graph with no units. Are you really going to argue that a direct statement with actual values is less precise than a bad graph with no units? Even if we were to agree on the calc this would be disingenuous.
If it being from the narrator is a factor, then we should also factor in authorial intent, which still ends up making the graph invalid to use.
We can't really rate if him going to galaxy level is consistent with the fight because it's pretty much just fan speculation at that point. Still, it seems like you guys are still attempting extrapolate values from a graph with none, and ignoring anything that points towards the graph not being a precise measurement. 'He went through the effort of making it' doesn't prove anything. He could've 'went through the effort' to make it a visual aid just as he could to make it scientific.
Ayewale
He/Him- 1,070
- 789
Most feats are not statements from the narrator, though?? I have never seen the wiki accept statements from the narrator and then ignore the narrator's intent. That makes comically little sense and so wouldn't be applied here. Also, the graph is pretty objectively incomplete; several members throughout the thread have pointed this out. You can dismiss them as 'nitpicks' or 'not mattering' but the graph still sucks no matter what.
- 2,299
- 401
You're acting like I brought the topic back to just "I agree and you disagree" or some axiomatic issue, I didn't. If you thought it was weird to engage with that point then why did you say it? It seems as if you recognised there was no way to argue your point so you just decided to pretend it's a more fundamental disagreement than it is.
A number is a number whether it's said in English, in roman numerals, as a coordinate of a graph or god damn anything.
If you believe this to be a fundamental disagreement then I think everyone in the wiki who isn't a liar fundamentally disagrees with you.
It isn't convincing because you're misrepresenting that part of the page. It's talking about when likely unrelated stats are increasing instead of power, but the context of the graph uses the concept of "power" no differently than a statement saying "my power increased tenfold".
I genuinely hate the fact that you used my unedited comment btw, the reason the grammar is so stinky is cause I was making a few edits to the substance of my point and the different comments sort of fused together a little.
Anyway, you're treading covered ground there. Point is, the only thing you're missing is units and frankly reading those numbers is not a significantly more infantile process than inferring them from context. They are so incredibly spelled out that not only is saying the graph contains incomplete information insane but going further with that and saying that means the graph is not literal is flabbergasting.
- 13,903
- 5,405
Don’t have the phone battery to answer all of this but
It’s not ignoring the narrator’s intent to pay attention to the graph given by the narrator
- 12,833
- 4,002
I agree with Tago and Ziller.
- 4,781
- 1,675
- Thread starter
- #198
There is a reason why we have higher with RPL for a rating. It starts out as 4A, and higher with RPL and accelerated development (combat).
Also not gonna lie, the graph is definitely visual aid in showing off Saitama’s exponential growth compared to Garou’s own growth.
We can see that he was growing stronger during the course of the fight, but never have a in verse statement about a explicit multipler as exponential growth can not just been doubled necessarily too.
Again, I also don’t see how this address @Ayewale, @Agnaa, and @DontTalkDT’s points as they have making some good points regarding this.
Also not gonna lie, the graph is definitely visual aid in showing off Saitama’s exponential growth compared to Garou’s own growth.
We can see that he was growing stronger during the course of the fight, but never have a in verse statement about a explicit multipler as exponential growth can not just been doubled necessarily too.
Again, I also don’t see how this address @Ayewale, @Agnaa, and @DontTalkDT’s points as they have making some good points regarding this.
- 13,903
- 5,405
Mind elaborating a bit on your reasoning for agreeing (just for the sake of no Fra train)
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,781
- 14,177
It isn't convincing because you're misrepresenting that part of the page. It's talking about when likely unrelated stats are increasing instead of power, but the context of the graph uses the concept of "power" no differently than a statement saying "my power increased tenfold".
That isn't what that section of the page is talking about; that part of the Multipliers page I'm quoting comes before the caution about unrelated stats.
If you are talking about the example provided immediately after what I've been quoting, I'd like to point out that the page was just giving one example there; that does not mean that it's the only thing that rule covers.
That isn't what that section of the page is talking about; that part of the Multipliers page I'm quoting comes before the caution about unrelated stats.
If you are talking about the example provided immediately after what I've been quoting, I'd like to point out that the page was just giving one example there; that does not mean that it's the only thing that rule covers.
- Status
Similar threads
