Machmatej
He/Him- 1,642
- 1,580
can confirm
-
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.
Gyutaro’s Destruction of the Entertainment District Calc Conflict Review
- Thread starter Epyriel
- Start date
- Status
- 155
- 375
To be honest, I was never really ok with the currently in use calculation for Gyutaro's final attack, primarily because it is based on the KE from one of the blood blades seen in the anime, however, this is an anime only feature, in the manga Gyutaro is seen to release 3 blood tornadoes simultaneously, which is what actually caused the destruction of the ED. So, calculating the level of the feat from something that was only shown in the anime, while directly contradicting the primary source, just doesn't seem right. I raised this issue to Xaropado (the author of the calc) from the very beginning, but he went along with it anyways.
This is why in my blog I just calculated the yield from the destruction alone, since this is the only thing that's consistent across all sources (manga, anime and novels).
This is why in my blog I just calculated the yield from the destruction alone, since this is the only thing that's consistent across all sources (manga, anime and novels).
- 11,266
- 10,110
Brother I know you are thirsting for it so badly but wait for when Chariot drops the thread because he literally said this or next week 
- 14,996
- 10,332
It's coming.
Ruby_R_Dracula
She/Her- 5,104
- 2,079
who's comingIt's coming.
Lilybitdun
She/Her- 2,400
- 1,410
It is
- 2,106
- 1,003
Funny, I can't see anything in this thread, do I need to be outerversal to perceive the downgrade because it doesn't exist?
- 908
- 263
It's funny that you practically made a joke about me when almost 2 months have passed but. BUT! It's coming ehhhhBrother I know you are thirsting for it so badly but wait for when Chariot drops the thread because he literally said this or next week
- 4,810
- 5,967
We’re finishing some stuff, but don’t worry, DS is still on the list.It's funny that you practically made a joke about me when almost 2 months have passed but. BUT! It's coming ehhhh
Machmatej
He/Him- 1,642
- 1,580
- 4,810
- 5,967
the list in question:
But nah it should be out soon-ish? Like, within the next month give or take
Delusionaltx2
He/Him- 6,210
- 1,295
Atp, bro is the deku (Pre-nerf) of 8-AIt's coming.
Epyriel
He/Him- 1,497
- 1,646
- Thread starter
- #137
In a recent staff thread CGMs seemed to be in agreement that this rule only applies to contradictions on the order of 50 billion times off, so by this far looser interpretation of the KE rules there is honestly nothing wrong with the original KE calc, so the point of this thread is moot.
Qurbonboev
He/Him- 2,716
- 1,602
Prove that speed of movement and power correlates in DS, with same amount of evidence as in JJK.
Epyriel
He/Him- 1,497
- 1,646
- Thread starter
- #139
That ain’t how it works.
There are 7 different qualifying criteria listed for using KE. Including projectiles.
And apparently the rule about destruction anti-feats doesn’t matter except in ludicrously contradictory examples in the range of 10 orders of magnitude or above, so there is nothing stopping it being used here either.
- 14,996
- 10,332
???
Don’t know why you had to post in a thread that’s been inactive for 2 months
Don’t know why you had to post in a thread that’s been inactive for 2 months
Qurbonboev
He/Him- 2,716
- 1,602
If you want to pursue this line of thoughts, it's better to make separate CGM thread about this topic, instead of necroing this
- 2,106
- 1,003
Epyriel is correct. The destruction shown is decent enough for the Kinetic Energy to still be valid.
- 330
- 257
- 17,873
- 15,341
Hi, here to report that it is how that works.
When it comes to questionable applicability, Versus Battle Wiki judges portrayal on a case by case basis. This is why our light beam feats page says that "Particularly reliable and scientifically accurate evidence can qualify a light beam or laser to be considered to move at light speed on its own", and that "Should there be great evidence in favor of the light being real or lightspeed, a comparably minor showing against it being real can be overruled" This is also why similar standards like the ones regarding black holes emphasize that portrayal is what ultimately decides if something is valid. Kinetic energy feats fall underneath this umbrella, of course.
This is to say that even if you weren't grossly misunderstanding what I was saying in that post, which is that the 7-C calc is by necessity a significant lowball and thus not actually disproving the consistency of the 7-A calc, there is a literal world of difference between the portrayal of Dabura's feat (Which goes out of its way to depict side effects of relativistic kinetic energy in a fairly realistic manner) and Gyutaro's feat (Which is a bunch of squiggles flickering around). The former shows a fairly in-depth understanding and willingness to portray kinetic energy realistically, and thus can be more easily accepted to be real, the latter has practically no hints of even being intended to be a kinetic energy feat at all.
Epyriel
He/Him- 1,497
- 1,646
- Thread starter
- #145
Except no, that is not how it works since you are trying to evaluate two different feats meeting different qualifying criterion on the grounds of one criterion and not the other.
Dabura is using this criterion
And the blood blades are using this criterion:
However the obstacle to both is the same.
They both violate this disqualifying criterion:
While you said:
So what is it?
Either only truly absurd scales of contradictions matter (like the 10 orders of magnitude difference you cite for the difference between a cracked wall and 7-C) or lower contradictions also apply.
If you want to say Dabura’s destruction is actually Mountain level, by all means sure, that would invalidate such an objection. I would heavily contest that it is, and the only calculation even attempting to claim that is absolutely full of holes and extreme high balls in methodology, but at least that is a valid line of argument in principle.
But the meaning of the KE rule and when it applies is a different matter entirely and one that has far larger implications.
The wording of the rule itself just seems to say any contradiction in yield should defer to the destruction calculation.
But if you want to say actually the KE highball can be used if the contradiction is narrow, feel free to clarify that. In that case please give clarity as to a cutoff, the example you give is a ten digit difference in yield, if you actually think it should be lower then what is it?
Because so far it seems the KE rules are being treated as more of a suggestion than any clear rules.
- 17,873
- 15,341
Well, there's also this:
- The kinetic energy displayed is directly shown to be as a result of speed, or at least heavily implied to be so.
But in truth the specificity of how Modulo portrays Relativistic movement earns it a lot more favor than if they simply said "he's moving fast, so he's hitting hard!". Our standards are guidelines and if a feat is particularly committed to realistic portrayal of kinetic energy then that should be taken into consideration when evaluating its validity. Dabura's feat just so happens to do that, and thus a comparatively minor inconsistency is easier to ignore than it would be for most feats.
Doesn't hurt that this inconsistency is not really existent in the first place.
No it isn't. I have already explained that the 7-C calc isn't actually setting an upper boundary for Dabura's feat, just a lower one.
I'm not saying the destruction is Mountain level, I'm saying the destruction cannot be proven to be far below Mountain level, there is a difference. Our calculations are never exact and usually lean- as they should- towards a lower end estimate, and part of that is because we lack the ability to gauge or calculate a lot of the finer details going on in a feat, both because we're not physicists and because a work of fiction isn't going to give the relevant information most of the time.
This shouldn't really be a surprise. Especially if you're an anime scaler you've probably seen certain feats be recalculated a bunch of times and jump several tiers up or down in the process. Seriously, there's One Punch Man feats I've seen run the gamut from 6-A to High 5-A. Of course not all of these recalcs are correct but it serves to outline just how a calculation can be mathematically fine but fail to capture the full scope of a feat. If there's a reasonable argument that Dabura's destruction is not so far from 7-A, and there is, then the argument that the visuals are inconsistent struggles to hold weight.
They're rules, but they're rules informing a judgement call rather than serving as an end all be all. Special cases should be given special treatment, and Dabura is one such special case. Gyutaro isn't, at least not in the positive sense of the word. There's several demerits to its validity, in fact.
Epyriel
He/Him- 1,497
- 1,646
- Thread starter
- #147
This is a cop-out.
Yes, calculations always have room for error (in both directions notably) but that doesn’t change the fact that the rules as written prioritize destruction calculations.
Now either the destruction contradicts the KE or it doesn’t.
So yes, at the end of the day, a determination about which destruction calculations use better assumptions and methods and are more likely to be accurate would need to be had.
You are treating the KE rules as if they are written like the lightning or light rules when they are simply not.
The lightning and light rules go out of their way to make clear that any “case by case” evaluation is being done to contrast whether the positive criteria for using realistic speeds for lightning or light outweigh the dispositive criteria for lightning or light.
And is simply not how the KE rules are written.
It lists a bunch of different options to be used as possible prerequisites for using KE, and then it lists a bunch of disqualifying conditions.
There is an important difference between necessary and sufficient conditions.
The KE disqualifying criteria are all written as sufficient conditions while the lightning and light rules are explicitly not.
If you want to treat the KE rules on similar grounds as to the lightning and light rules, then that requires a rather urgent update as to how the actual KE page is written.
- 17,873
- 15,341
As a CGM it is my obligation and my authority to make a judgment call on how our rules and standards are interpreted, and I have done so. I have clearly outlined the difference between the two feats and my reason for doing so, and I am not interested in repeating myself. Have a good day.
Last edited:
- 14,996
- 10,332
Even ignoring KE, there are still multiple problems with this 'feat'
- 21,509
- 36,023
Mfw when it takes 1000 blades to to cause 8-B level destruction to some wooden houses with a inflated value.
Anyways this should be closed now, Floxy never actually agreed to any specifc calc and just commented on the math itself but never took at stance, myself and armor have both rejected the KE so there is nothing left to do here
Anyways this should be closed now, Floxy never actually agreed to any specifc calc and just commented on the math itself but never took at stance, myself and armor have both rejected the KE so there is nothing left to do here
- 17,873
- 15,341
Sorry to drag this out, but I didn't reject the KE, I simply disagreed with the comparison to Dabura's feat. I don't think the feat is any good but I haven't really gone through the arguments as to why it'd be incorrect or participated in any debate in that fashion.
- 5,386
- 4,827
I have issue with scaling Demon Slayer to the full power of the attack as well given:
1) As everyone else has said, it took multiple blades to do this attack - even if we do by the 7-C End
2) The Vast Majority of Blades did not the DS Crew
1) As everyone else has said, it took multiple blades to do this attack - even if we do by the 7-C End
2) The Vast Majority of Blades did not the DS Crew
Epyriel
He/Him- 1,497
- 1,646
- Thread starter
- #153
As already covered:
1) This thread is a CGM thread for determining the appropriate total yield, not a CRT for who scales to it
2) Composite attacks are listed as AP all the time on profiles as is appropriate, trying to leave out the fact it is a simultaneous barrage is a misleading way of presenting information if the entire point of the profiles is to give people a rundown of the actual yield of their capabilities
3) An NPES is already accepted for the verse, and moving a hundred objects at the same time is physically equivalent to moving one object with a hundred times the mass - linking the hundred objects together with string to serve some weird appeal to contiguity serves nothing physics wise nor weigh on the practicality of listing it on the profiles
4) As far the KE calc goes, it is literally calculating only a single blade
5) Tengen was just under 3 meters away from the epicentre, so the total yield is an important consideration for calculating his durability
- 179
- 150
Its coming...
- Status
