• 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.

One Piece High 7-A Revision

Damage3245

Damage3245

He/Him
VS Battles
Administrator
Calculation Group
31,210
27,406
Going to keep this brief since the revision is primarily just for a calc change.

Currently for One Piece we rate several characters as being High 7-A from scaling directly or indirectly to this feat performed by Fujitora which is accepted as being 1.98 Gigatons (Large Mountain level).

I've recently re-calced the feat here by scaling the Pica statue directly to Dressrosa and re-calcing the amount of rubble within Dressrosa itself, and the result has been accepted as 420.669 Megatons (Mountain level).

Now, there will still be some characters who scale to High 7-A due to Luffy's Gear 4 multiplier making him High 7-A, so the changes aren't going to be that massive but a lot of the characters who are rated as Large Mountain level+ will need to be downgraded to Large Mountain level.

Here are the proposed list of changes.
 
You should ask several other calc group members to comment here regarding which calculation that we should use.
 
The previous thread (and currently) we scale Luffy off baseline, there were even two compromises brought forth on the thread that led to this thread, since you were adamant on the lower compromise Damage I'll assume you still are now: that would put thrm at 7-A not a lower High 7-A
 
Eminiteable said:
The previous thread (and currently) we scale Luffy off baseline, there were even two compromises brought forth on the thread that led to this thread, since you were adamant on the lower compromise Damage I'll assume you still are now: that would put thrm at 7-A not a lower High 7-A
Click to expand...
Are you referring to Luffy without using Gear 4th, right? In that case then unfortunately yes, Luffy will be downgraded to 7-A, he will be only High 7-A with Gear 4th.
 
No im saying in the 6-C thread there were two compromises brought up instead of scaling G3 Luffy to the full amount of Fuji's Ferocious tiger, Damage said that was the only compromise they were willing to agree on (or something) that compromise would make gear fourth 7-A as G3 wouldn't scale to the full value of Fuji's attack.
 
@Eminiteable; since more people seemed to be in favor of the first compromise, I can accept that one too. Both Calaca and Ant were neutral and were fine with either compromise, so it should be alright.

Also, G4 Luffy would still be High 7-A anyway based on Pica's feats and Luffy indirectly scaling to them in his weaker forms (meaning with the multiplier he would still reach High 7-A either way).

Anyway, we can handle the exact details for scaling once the calc is accepted as being better to use.
 
Eminiteable said:
This shit sort it just died.
Click to expand...
Currently waiting on a response from calc group members. I'll try and contact some more today.

But even if none of them respond, if there are no arguments against using the new version of the calc, then eventually we should use it.
 
When calculating the amount of rubble from the buildings in the city, Cin uses 80% hollowness (getting the volume from the area of the city multiplied by a height of 50 meters).

I get the volume by multiplying the area by 20 meters (since 50 seems way too high for the average building height) and I use 90% hollowness in order to account for streets and not just hollow buildings.

For the Pica statue, Cin and I use different panels to get the height and proportions for the rest of the statue. He compares it to a hill which is then compared to the diameter of the island. Whereas I compare the statue directly to the diameter of the island instead, cutting out a step.

For the distance the rubble travelled, Cin tried estimating the amount of distance the rubble would cross using a map, but I don't think it's necessarily reliable. I assumed that the rubble would on average cross the radius of the island since it is all gathering towards one side.

As for the average height of the rubble raised above the ground, Cin scale it from a hill in the background, whereas I scaled it from the remains of the Pica statue and found out how high that ended up above the ground.

In a nutshell, those are the main differences.
 
Percentage: I'm fine with both, but 90% seems safer indeed

Pixel scaling: Damage's calc seems better too

Distance: Map? Does the feat have a map or something?

Height: The remains of the Pica statue is better, considering the hills are supposedly further to the camera, making the feat high-balled.
 
There isn't a map of the feat, but Cin does use a map of Dressrosa and estimates how far different parts of rubble across the island would have to travel to get to where he estimates the East side of the island would be.

Personally I think this method is a bit over-complicated. I'm not saying my assumption of crossing the radius of the island during the timeframe of the feat is the best method to use, but Cin's doesn't seem great either.
 
You can try to ask the other calc group members to comment here again if you wish.
 
Yes. Feel free to ask him to do so.
 
Well, Dr. Fix has left Cin a message but there's no telling if he has seen it or not.

So unless anyone has anything to argue against the new calc, there isn't much point in bumping this unless we want to progress with revisions.
 
We still need other calc group members to decide which calculation blog that we should use though.
 
Sure. So far Spino has posted on this thread and his assessment is that the majority of my calc is better at least.
 
Okay. We need a bit more though. Feel free to ask Antoniofer, Executor, and Ugarik.
 
Thank you for commenting Therefir.

@ChocomilkAlex; some High 7-A characters will be changed to 7-A. Some High 7-A+ characters will be changed to High 7-A.

So not a huge change, but it does affect a large number of characters.
 
@Antvasima, we've had two calc group members approve my version (three, if you include myself), and there hasn't been a single counter-argument for why we should keep the old one.

Is it okay to start moving onto the revision process and listing the new ratings?
 
Does it really take two people to say "this calc is kinda ok" to completely invalidate another accepted calc.
 
@Eminiteable; three people actually.

And nobody has offered a single reason for why the other calc should be used.

Just being first doesn't mean it is any more correct.
 
@Damage

I would prefer a bit more calc group input first. Have you asked the members I recommended earlier?
 
Of course. Starting with the Pica part, I prefer Damage's version because he re-measured the whole thing once again, while CinCameron simply re-scaled its size from an old calc, while it's not inherently wrong, I do think it's pretty lazy and surprisingly even more confusing than simply measuring the statue like Damage did, that's one of the reasons I think his scaling is more precise.

Now with the bridge. The way Damage measured the bridge was much more direct than with CinCameron's version, and we know the scaling tends to get really inconsistent the more images are used to scale one thing.

Finally with the rubble, CinCameron's version seems to have dropped that part...? I'm not sure, his blog couldn't get any more confusing, he said that we should ignore the values of that part and go directly to the revised section, but in that section the rubble never got re-measured, so Damage's version is automatically better in that part if I'm correct.

Overall, Damage made a better, more direct, simpler and clearer version of CinCameron's calc.
 
Okay. That seems to make sense. I would still prefer if somebody asks a few other calc group members as well though.
 
I have already messaged them though I'm not sure how necessary this is. This isn't a controversial change that is being proposed.
 
Yeah, basically I agree with Therefir. 90% is safer to account for the streets and stuff, his pixel scaling cuts a step, and the things used to pixel scale are closer to the actual thing scaled to.
 
One Piece is the most popular comicbook series in the entire world. It is rather controversial to make major changes to it.

Still, if nobody else that you asked for help replies soon, I suppose that this will have to be sufficient.
 
I would like someone to explain Cin's version from a neutral/pro-Cin's version point of view though, seeing how so many supporters support Cin's version but haven't explained why yet...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kachon123
  • Locked
One Piece: Small Mid Tier Revision
Replies
15
Views
1K
Kachon123
Kachon123
NicStar211
OPM Black Sperm profile upgrade
Replies
2
Views
592
NicStar211
NicStar211
IGunProFan2341
1 low-end 7-A Character vs 600+ low-end High 7-C characters
Replies
2
Views
342
IGunProFan2341
IGunProFan2341
Dragongod224
  • Locked
(My wife is a demon queen) Xiang ye ap Revision
Replies
11
Views
2K
Dragongod224
Dragongod224
Small Eddsworld revision CRT
Replies
7
Views
669
DarkMatterEnergy254
Back
Top