• 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.
Bro it's normal ass pixel scaling the **** kind of objection do you think Ultima might have? It's also not relevant, the calc is ******* accepted and Ultima isn't a god damn calc member. This discussion is on if people agree with the application, nothing else.
 
Tago238 said:
Bro it's normal ass pixel scaling the **** kind of objection do you think Ultima might have? It's also not relevant, the calc is ******* accepted and Ultima isn't a god damn calc member. This discussion is on if people agree with the application, nothing else.
Click to expand...
The calc was accepted on the grounds that the math is logically sound IIRC as well as the fact it means we won’t be able to apply the calc if it get rejected due to the multipler being calculated for it. It is even shown as clear as day on the calculation.
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
The calc was accepted on the grounds that the math is logically sound IIRC
Click to expand...
So, the calc is already accepted, and I come here, and say I agree with Tago with regards to its usability. Seems to naturally follow that I think it is fine to use overall, as of now, no?
 
Qawsedf234 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Also, I have to taken into consideration of this reply.
@Qawsedf234 I put you in agreement, but are you actually neutral or just agreement?
 
Let me point out this ************ Hammer put someone as disagreeing if they liked a post of Agnaa's but refused to put someone as agreeing if they made an entire ******* evaluation of the calc being right. What a shitty thread creator holy hell.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
So, the calc is already accepted, and I come here, and say I agree with Tago with regards to its usability. Seems to naturally follow that I think it is fine to use overall, as of now, no?
Click to expand...
Actually I might been mistaken as @DontTalkDT disagreed with the calc and I think @Agnaa as well.

Welp, either way, I will have to add it to the tally as the argument was if the calc can been used for the verse in general
 
I agree that HammerStrike hasn't been the best at accurately listing the results of this thread but please try to be civil.
Tago238 said:
Let me point out this ************ Hammer put someone as disagreeing if they liked a post of Agnaa's but refused to put someone as agreeing if they made an entire ******* evaluation of the calc being right. What a shitty thread creator holy hell.
Click to expand...
 
Tago238 said:
Let me point out this ************ Hammer put someone as disagreeing if they liked a post of Agnaa's but refused to put someone as agreeing if they made an entire ******* evaluation of the calc being right. What a shitty thread creator holy hell.
Click to expand...
I literally put @Qawsedf234 in there in the Op. Also let me add Ultima reality to the list
 
You can't be serious. You put Maverick in disagreeing for liking posts but are unsure if I agree despite me being in clear favor of the multiplier since the first page?

If it wasn't clear, I agree with using the graph. Though I'm unsure you should consider me a staff member.
 
Phoenks said:
You can't be serious. You put Maverick in disagreeing for liking posts but are unsure if I agree despite me being in clear favor of the multiplier since the first page?

If it wasn't clear, I agree with using the graph. Though I'm unsure you should consider me a staff member.
Click to expand...
I did put you in the agreement actually before editing it out actually. That was just me being confused.
 
Yeah, don't count somebody's vote unless they've actually commented in the thread regarding it.

Just liking posts isn't enough.
 
Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask, but if the calc does get accepted, would it be given a Possibly rating or would it be a hard upgrade? Given the amount of debate over whether it is symbolic or literal it doesn't seem pretty solid.

Honestly if it was a 'possibly' I'd probably agree with the opposition.
 
Ayewale said:
Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask, but if the calc does get accepted, would it be given a Possibly rating or would it be a hard upgrade? Given the amount of debate over whether it is symbolic or literal it doesn't seem pretty solid.

Honestly if it was a 'possibly' I'd probably agree with the opposition.
Click to expand...
I thought member agreement won't be accepted, lol.
 
I'd settle for nothing less than a likely, as I asserted in the first page of the thread
not that it matters anymore though, since now there's staff members involved
 
Tago238 said:
You didn't add Crimson to the list of agreements btw.
Click to expand...
Crimson only agree with your points and someone else as well even though it doesn’t debunk the opposition’s points ngl, but I added it anyway.

Also technically a FRA as well, but if I am to include the calc members opinions. 1 is neutral, 1 disagreeing with it (Donttalk was a calc member group IIRC or at least formerly, but still counts) plus the one who made the calc decided to switch to neutral.
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
Crimson only agree with your points and someone else as well even though it doesn’t debunk the opposition’s points ngl, but I added it anyway.

Also technically a FRA as well, but if I am to include the calc members opinions. 1 is neutral, 1 disagreeing with it (Donttalk was a calc member group IIRC or at least formerly, but still counts) plus the one who made the calc decided to switch to neutral.
Click to expand...


You can't count DT twice because he has 2 staff positions lol. Also, as I've already said, the calc is objectively fine, it's just basic ass pixel scaling. The point of contention on this thread is entirely outside the purview of the calc itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Phoenks
  • Locked
The OPM Power Graph
2 3
Replies
82
Views
8K
Phoenks
Phoenks
Phoenks
One-Punch Man: Faster and Stronger!
2
Replies
67
Views
8K
SatellaTheWoE
SatellaTheWoE
Phoenks
  • Locked
Saitama VS Goku • (1-1-0)
6 7 8
Replies
301
Views
16K
TheGodOfICE777
TheGodOfICE777
Shadow_x007x
  • Locked
Adjusted Tier Boros and Saitama
Replies
5
Views
1K
Shadow_x007x
Shadow_x007x
Kachon123
  • Locked
One-Punch Man: Garou and Saitama Graph Discussion (Cleaned and Continued)
6 7 8
Replies
290
Views
17K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top