- 4,706
- 1,637
- Thread starter
- #281
Wrong one. I think I mistaken it with someone else. Hold on
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I count it as the reasoning for that matter why Ant seems to being neutral. Also @Matthew_Schroeder is a former staff member so he does count since he did disagreeYou 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.
Staff ≠ Ex-staffI count it as the reasoning for that matter why Ant seems to being neutral. Also @Matthew_Schroeder is a former staff member so he does count since he did disagree
He is still considered a honorary staff member. Former staff members after all should offer input on specific things anyway.Staff ≠ Ex-staff
Naw mate, supporting does not grant any benefits. The heck is that? Again, either count everyone's vote or only staff. And current staff if you don't mind.He is still considered a honorary staff member. Former staff members after all should offer input on specific things anyway.
Edit:
Post in thread 'Senna's Feat 2 (ft. Bleach Cosmology)'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/sennas-feat-2-ft-bleach-cosmology.128164/post-4329395
Also I undecided on what the status for @Agnaa as he does support the wiki with a tag.
You should. It is unfair to other members. Being a favorite or even supporting a wiki does not grant any benefits.Dude, I literally debating on whatever I should exclude @Agnaa or not.
Anyway, I will check on this regard.
Sounds fantastic. But again, I think the admin should get the bolding and green color as their opinion is more valued than regular staff.I don't see why you don't just count votes like how I did on the OPM Revision.
Again, a bureaucrat mentioned they did include retired staff members as honorary staff member in the votes.You should. It is unfair to other members. Being a favorite or even supporting a wiki does not grant any benefits.
Or even being ex-staff.
Correct, it is getting horribly derailedWhatever the case this thread's getting kind of close to being derailed by voting shenanigans so we should probably decide quickly.
This is my last post here. I disagree with the calc, if you're gonna count my vote.
Here is my current tallies. It is now 4 agreement vs 3 disagreements with the calc although in the case of @DontTalkDT , he was contending with the multiplier being used in the calc.One Punch Man - That one power graph
vsbattles.fandom.com
Should this calc been accepted in regard to multiplers and exponential growth?
Edit: Tally updated again.
disagree with the calc: @DontTalkDT @Andytrenom @Matthew_Schroeder (He is a former staff member)
Agree with it: @KLOL506, @Ultima_Reality, @Phoenks @CrimsonStarFallen
Neutral: @Qawsedf234 @Damage3245 @Antvasima (say something about misunderstanding and unable to overrule @DontTalkDT on their disagreement with the calc’s multiplier)
Shouldn't be counted.@Matthew_Schroeder (He is a former staff member)
Damage wish to catch up with the debate to the point I hope that we don’t change this thread to staff only.Put me in neutral; will have to catch up with the debate.
The other concern which Andy brought up, that being the possibility of the graph not being literal, doesn't seem particularly strong to me, either, given that so far she hasn't outlined much of a reason for why this would be the case here
zamn the elf girl thoAnother example is during the pre retcon Garou feat, there's a visual representation of the oceanic plates being lifted using arrows and everything. I was just as opposed to using that diagram to calc the feat
this does help reinforce previous points, but it's become more of a semantics and standards thingI see two possibilities here.
First: It is assumed that "Serious Punch Square" is the baseline, or 0y = SP^2.
Well, if that's the case, the no units argument should be prioritized, because one cannot measure the rate at which the growth occurs. A Graph cannot be measured if all we know is what 0 represents.
Why you ask? First because the graphs basically are based on a function. It tells us where it starts, but not what rate it grows.
For example, both these graphs are correct, and both start at the value "1".
Basically
If 0y is assumed to be SP^2, then this calculation simply cannot claim to be accurate. I'd disagree with that.
Second: It is assumed that the first X point of reference is the same level as the Serious Punch Squared.
See, this works! Because if the distance between Y to the line is n value, you can measure the rate at which the growth occurs. Absolutely, this WOULD be accurate.
The only problem is the premise. The first X point cannot possibly signify the same level as they were when they performed the feat, obviously they fought, and their growth occurs at astounding rate even before this graph, so X cannot be the same value as the feat.
However, "X" HAS TO BE A HIGHER VALUE, meaning using the n value when x>n, means that 58x is > 58n, thus, Saitama's value is unquantifiably higher, same applies to Garou. This acts as a low end, granting "at least" to their values.
This is the near same as a multiplier statement, and ignoring it would be, OBJECTIVELY, indexing inaccurate information. (As in, "Garou and Saitama are at least n times stronger than at the beginning of this graph", as intended).
- It is stated to be an exponential graph.
- It is stated to be growth in power.
If it's the first option, then no. I disagree.
If it's the second option, there isn't A SINGULAR VALID REASON in my point of view to discard it. I'd agree with that.
Hopefully I added some insight. I have not looked through the thread and was asked to give my opinion on this.
what's your reasoning thenWell, I would not say a multiplier be allowed - this more looks like "Saitama is far stronger over time" and "every event may make him qualitatively stronger but to an unknown degree".
The graph and the growth are stated to be exponential. If you say "his strength grows exponentially", then show us a graph, it is clear that the Graph should be interpreted linearly to satisfy the first statement (exponent)Well, I would not say a multiplier be allowed - this more looks like "Saitama is far stronger over time" and "every event may make him qualitatively stronger but to an unknown degree".
Disclaimer: I am not a really knowledgeable member in OPM.
First things first: the graph does not even label their stats and units - just a rough estimation of how Saitama's growth compare to Garou.what's your reasoning then
agreeOne Punch Man - That one power graph
vsbattles.fandom.com
Should this calc been accepted in regard to multiplers and exponential growth?
Edit: Tally updated again.
disagree with the calc: @DontTalkDT @Andytrenom @Matthew_Schroeder (He is a former staff member)
Agree with it: @KLOL506, @Ultima_Reality, @Phoenks @CrimsonStarFallen
Neutral: @Qawsedf234 @Damage3245 @Antvasima (say something about misunderstanding and unable to overrule @DontTalkDT on their disagreement with the calc’s multiplier)
This is not necessary.First things first: the graph does not even label their stats and units - just a rough estimation of how Saitama's growth compare to Garou.
What the y is meant to represent in value.
Where said value was when they were at the "0.4 , 0.3" coordinates.
Pardon ... The relationship is stated to exist in the very chapter where the graph is showcased.To prove an exponential relationship
First things first: the graph does not even label their stats and units - just a rough estimation of how Saitama's growth compare to Garou.
Second, the group of people may not been even making their best model. From what I see, the reason to justify an exponential model can as well be justified with a line chart or even a bar chart.
To prove an exponential relationship, we may need at least two feats as a comparison, and assume the graph itself as linear.
Just do not count my votes if you believe I am just bluffing.
If one (or even I) can make a graph to explain such relationship then it would be good to go. It is not immediately usable, but if you wish to argue out a way there is a direction.
IMHO we may still have some the most lenient way to make the graph usable if you really wish to make it usable:
Use serious punch and collapsing star roaring cannon as the first point,
then use the galactic hole punching feat as another reference point,
THEN refer those feats to Saitama and Garou at different time paths
HammerStrikes219 has a history of very serious mental illness, so don't be too harsh towards him. However, he has improved his mental state over time, and is a harmless nice person outside of rambling a lot in somewhat incoherent posts nowadays. That is still a problem due to derailing, and he needs to learn to control that, but we shouldn't scream at and insult him.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.
I also already TLDR what the debate was about whatever the calc should been accepted or not.HammerStrikes219 has a history of very serious mental illness, so don't be too harsh on him. However, he has improved his mental state over time, and is a harmless nice person outside of rambling a lot in somewhat incoherent posts nowadays. That is still a problem due to derailing, and he needs to learn to control that, but we shouldn't scream at and insult him.
I view this as Jason disagree with applying a multipler to a calc to being specific. That is not unclear.Anyway, I tried to accurately update the tally in the first post of this thread.
Well, I would not say a multiplier be allowed - this more looks like "Saitama is far stronger over time" and "every event may make him qualitatively stronger but to an unknown degree".
Disclaimer: I am not a really knowledgeable member in OPM.