- 4,157
- 1,393
- Thread starter
- #281
Wrong one. I think I mistaken it with someone else. Hold on
-
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
- 4,157
- 1,393
- Thread starter
- #282
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 disagree
- 18,393
- 14,309
Staff ≠ Ex-staff
- 4,157
- 1,393
- Thread starter
- #284
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 there, but hmm.
Last edited:
- 18,393
- 14,309
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.
Being favorite member does not grant him a pass or being ex-staff.
- 18,393
- 14,309
My man really said supporting as a supportive argument
- 18,393
- 14,309
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.
- 10,939
- 9,711
I don't see why you don't just count votes like how I did on the OPM Revision.
- 18,393
- 14,309
Sounds fantastic. But again, I think the admin should get the bolding and green color as their opinion is more valued than regular staff.
- 4,157
- 1,393
- Thread starter
- #294
Again, a bureaucrat mentioned they did include retired staff members as honorary staff member in the votes.
There is no precedent/ruling that say we exclude honorary staff members in votes.
Also I will remove @Agnaa then.
Edit: Also playing the unfair card is unnecessary and can turn against you as the restriction isn’t needed here and there is no such ruling for this part.
Correct, it is getting horribly derailed
Last edited:
- 4,157
- 1,393
- Thread starter
- #295
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)
Last edited:
- 13,902
- 5,396
Matthew shouldn't count
he's not a staff member, and he's only contributed 2 or 3 messages the entire time, none of which were arguments
he's not a staff member, and he's only contributed 2 or 3 messages the entire time, none of which were arguments
- 18,494
- 16,052
Shouldn't be counted.
- 18,393
- 14,309
Again, I already said that no ex-staff (means former staff) and "supporting wiki people" and favorite (honorable former staff = ex-staff) should be counted either way.
Because many none staff members who contributed most of thread and inserted most detailed reasonable arguments did not get chance to be counted. Just don't count him.
Because many none staff members who contributed most of thread and inserted most detailed reasonable arguments did not get chance to be counted. Just don't count him.
- 4,157
- 1,393
- Thread starter
- #299
I doing a staff member tally and right now, this is actually borderline almost stalling the thread over who shouldn’t counted in the vote and so on.
Also Matt did give his stance already which was in the disagreement camp.
Also Matt did give his stance already which was in the disagreement camp.
- 4,157
- 1,393
- Thread starter
- #300
Damage wish to catch up with the debate to the point I hope that we don’t change this thread to staff only.
Edit: It is a 1 vote difference leaning towards the calc being accepted.
Last edited:
- 10,751
- 6,479
In general I just wouldn't take things like this to be literal. They are accompanying imagery, rather than something concrete within the reality of the world, that only really serve to give you a proper idea of what's going
I guess this is a matter of default standards though
- 10,751
- 6,479
Another 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
- 13,902
- 5,396
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
GodlyCharmander
He/Him- 5,744
- 4,996
I 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.
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.
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.
- 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.
- 13,902
- 5,396
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.
basically a war of loopholes vs loopholes
- 13,809
- 14,366
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.
Disclaimer: I am not a really knowledgeable member in OPM.
- 13,902
- 5,396
what's your reasoning then
GodlyCharmander
He/Him- 5,744
- 4,996
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)
- 13,809
- 14,366
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
- 190
- 108
agreeOne Punch Man - That one power graph
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)
GodlyCharmander
He/Him- 5,744
- 4,996
This is not necessary.
0.4x, 0.3y = n value representing Saitama.
we can solve for n as "at least X", X being the value of his star wiping feat. We can find the units from this simple logic we can find the units of y. We have the necessary context for it.
We don't care for the x unit, it represents time, we can estimate that.
Pardon ... The relationship is stated to exist in the very chapter where the graph is showcased.
- 4,157
- 1,393
- Thread starter
- #312
- 4,157
- 1,393
- Thread starter
- #313
Anyway, it is directly referred to Saitama’s accelerated development vs Garou’s accelerated development without a stated multipler and only a multipler we calculated from the grapth itself.
- 204
- 68
agree
- 165,658
- 73,355
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.
Last edited:
- 4,157
- 1,393
- Thread starter
- #317
I also already TLDR what the debate was about whatever the calc should been accepted or not.
Post in thread 'Yes, it is the Power Graph chart calculation'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/yes-it-is-the-power-graph-chart-calculation.140500/post-4993563
- 4,157
- 1,393
- Thread starter
- #319
Also as it stands, the calcs is not actually being accepted so far as that is 1 calc member opinion disagreeing with that including @DontTalkDT’s opinion on the matter
- 4,157
- 1,393
- Thread starter
- #320
I view this as Jason disagree with applying a multipler to a calc to being specific. That is not unclear.
Last edited:
- Status
