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.
Intro
So, in this thread it was accepted that Konoha is bigly now. Calc from the verse page.
Meat and Taters
This thread is to get this calc accepted that uses the new size of Konoha. Calc is rather simple, we see KN6 Naruto's uncharged, prematurely released TBB explode next to the FoD, using that we get its size, and apply a simple explosion formula to it for the yield.
Conclusion
If accepted I'll add the calc to the verse page.
Thank you for waiting until I was free to address this.
Firstly, I'll state that I don't have a strong disagreement with the calc itself; it is mathematically correct and in a vacuum it could be usable. But I have reasons for not being okay with it being directly applied and considered the best possible method.
Secondly, I think that even if we do accept the calc as being valid, that doesn't mean the only option available to us is using it exclusively and I'll outline some potential alternatives.
My Issues with the Calc
Less Reliable Method
One of the main flaws with Arc7Kuroi's method as I see it is that his point of comparison for the explosion (the Forest of Death with its 20 km diameter) is mostly off-screen in the panel that he using for his pixelscaling.
This is the original panel with the partially visible forest in the top-right highlighted:
As Arc7Kuroi's pixelscaling shows, the majority of it is completely off-screen. Arc7Kuroi has compensated for this by using a circular guide to assist the pixelscaling (assuming that from the angle we're viewing it at, the Forest of Death would be a perfect circle like that) but it still introduces uncertainty for precise size scaling.
Especially since, if we can't see the full landmark, how can we be entirely sure that it is the Forest of Death?
This is the same panel from the official colored version of the manga. It depicts that wide band I've highlighted bordering the forest as being what looks like a river going by the shade of blue.
If Kishimoto, over the years, changed how he envisions the layout of Konoha to be, to include a wide stretch of river above it... then we can't be completely sure that what is being pixelscaled here is intended to be the Forest of Death at all. We don't have a complete look at it, so we can't say "This is definitely a completely circular patch of forest, so it must be the Forest of Death."
We see only a small area that has a bend to it following the river, which means it could simply be a forest on the other side of the riverbank and not necessarily the Forest of Death itself.
Because of this added uncertainity (unable to pixelscaling off of the whole thing, and unable to verify by any other means that it is the very same Forest of Death), the method is less reliable, but this isn't the only issue I have.
Inconsistency with Other Methods
What the OP hasn't mentioned in his opening post is that we do currently have an accepted method for the explosion's size that this would be replacing, and not only that but we have four potential alternative methods.
If I arrange the accepted methods for the diameter of the explosion in order from smallest to largest, it should illustrate my point:
The newest method is almost 20 times larger than each of the other methods used to find the size of the explosion. If each method is valid to use, then only one of these method is highly inconsistent with the others.
Moreover, each of the reference objects used in the other methods for calculating the explosion are full visible and all pixelscaling done on-screen. I used the Hokage monuments heads, two methods for the cliff that the monument is situated on, and the depth of Pain's crater in Konoha. While none of them of course have an explicitly stated size value, we can put some trust in Kishimoto for keeping size relatively consistent.
After all, for calcs to work for this at all, we're assuming that Kishimoto is trying to be consistent between the size of the Forest of Death and the size of the explosion, otherwise there'd be no point in pixelscaling them. So there shouldn't be any real issue in having to find the size of these reference objects by comparing them to things Kishimoto has drawn.
If we have to balance on scales between "What is Kishimoto most likely to been consistent with", then Methods 1 through 4 show greater relative consistency with each other, than Method 5 does with any other method. If Kishimoto really intended for the explosion to be 21 kilometers across, why did he draw nothing else consistent with that except for the partially visible Forest of Death?
So in my personal evaluation, the newest proposed method is both the most unreliable method from the list, and the most inconsistent in terms of results.
Alternative Solutions
If you still believe the calc in the OP to be perfectly valid for use still, that doesn't inherently mean that the other methods are rendered invalid and can't be used. There are some options we can go for:
Use the more consistent results
As I laid out above, there is greater consistency in the already existing methods. Just because the newest one is mathematically valid doesn't mean it is the one we have to use. We can just continue using the currently accepted one, with the other calculations acting as support for it. By comparison the newest method has no additional support.
Average the results
If all five methods are valid, then a compromise solution to ensure that all valid size scalings are accounted for (so we're not just dismissing the inconsistent result, or favoring the inconsistent result above the others), is to produce an average calculation of all five methods. This represents a fair middle ground without skewing to the most extreme results.
Upper and lower bounds
Instead of averaging, we acknowledge that the explosion's size isn't completely certain since it depends on what exactly you go by to measure it. With multiple valid frames of reference, we can say that the explosion is "At least 978 meters across", going by one point of comparison, and it goes "up to 21,000 meters", this reflects the variability in the methods while accomodating the newest method as an upper limit for its size. Given the uncertainty of the method I raised above, this is better than relying on it as a definitive result and ignoring all other evidence.
This is an extra point that I want to highlight but I know it's obviously not an argument that stands up on its own so I'm not relying on it:
This is what the current list of Biju Bomb calcs looks like for the Naruto verse:
We instead get the 6-Tails Naruto surpassing the Biju Bombs created by the first form of the Juubi and the combined efforts of Kurama and Gyuki... I know this doesn't function as a counter-argument because we'd inevitably end up just upscaling all of the characters in that list to beyond the new calc... but I have to observe that even from a powerscaling perspective alone, the new calc is not very consistent with the general depiction of Biju Bomb sizes throughout the series.
Conclusion
My current perspective is that while the new calc isn't inherently wrong, it is less reliable and far more inconsistent than what we currently use. I don't see a majorly convincing reason for why we are safer using the new proposed method to the exclusion of all other methods and all other evidence that depicts a size more consistently around 20 times smaller than what has been calced. If a majority of Calc Group Members feels that we should use the new calc in some way, then I'd like to know their thoughts on the alternative solutions I've suggested.
No problem. I wanted to give your proposal the attention it deserves because I fully get where you're coming from even if we have differing conclusions, and I hope you'll get my stance on it.
Instead of averaging, we acknowledge that the explosion's size isn't completely certain since it depends on what exactly you go by to measure it. With multiple valid frames of reference, we can say that the explosion is "At least 978 meters across", going by one point of comparison, and it goes "up to 21,000 meters", this reflects the variability in the methods while accomodating the newest method as an upper limit for its size. Given the uncertainty of the method I raised above, this is better than relying on it as a definitive result and ignoring all other evidence.
I'm fine conceding to this. Although I think the upper bound should be labeled "possibly" instead of "up to", since "up to" implies the technique varies in power, but what we'd be compromising on here is "it's at least this level, but it has a decent possibility of being that level".
If you wouldn't mind pinging Clover (sorry Clover lol) and see if this compromise is amicable that'd be great.
Thank you for waiting until I was free to address this.
Firstly, I'll state that I don't have a strong disagreement with the calc itself; it is mathematically correct and in a vacuum it could be usable. But I have reasons for not being okay with it being directly applied and considered the best possible method.
Secondly, I think that even if we do accept the calc as being valid, that doesn't mean the only option available to us is using it exclusively and I'll outline some potential alternatives.
My Issues with the Calc
Less Reliable Method
One of the main flaws with Arc7Kuroi's method as I see it is that his point of comparison for the explosion (the Forest of Death with its 20 km diameter) is mostly off-screen in the panel that he using for his pixelscaling.
This is the original panel with the partially visible forest in the top-right highlighted:
As Arc7Kuroi's pixelscaling shows, the majority of it is completely off-screen. Arc7Kuroi has compensated for this by using a circular guide to assist the pixelscaling (assuming that from the angle we're viewing it at, the Forest of Death would be a perfect circle like that) but it still introduces uncertainty for precise size scaling.
Especially since, if we can't see the full landmark, how can we be entirely sure that it is the Forest of Death?
This is the same panel from the official colored version of the manga. It depicts that wide band I've highlighted bordering the forest as being what looks like a river going by the shade of blue.
If Kishimoto, over the years, changed how he envisions the layout of Konoha to be, to include a wide stretch of river above it... then we can't be completely sure that what is being pixelscaled here is intended to be the Forest of Death at all. We don't have a complete look at it, so we can't say "This is definitely a completely circular patch of forest, so it must be the Forest of Death."
We see only a small area that has a bend to it following the river, which means it could simply be a forest on the other side of the riverbank and not necessarily the Forest of Death itself.
Because of this added uncertainity (unable to pixelscaling off of the whole thing, and unable to verify by any other means that it is the very same Forest of Death), the method is less reliable, but this isn't the only issue I have.
I don't think Kishi adding a river is evidence that he's vastly changed his depiction of Konoha in its totality.
Especially after a three-year time skip, in a world where creating large amounts of water is entirely possible for an elite Jounin that specializes in Suiton, and in an area that was designed to be a combat testing ground for Genin, for an exam that we also know changes every time its done, (not to say we should assume that's the exact reason for the change, but the existence of the river should be viewed as a largely unimportant detail with no clear answer that shouldn't discredit the rest of the landscape looking practically identical to the one he drew of Konoha 6 years prior.)
What the OP hasn't mentioned in his opening post is that we do currently have an accepted method for the explosion's size that this would be replacing, and not only that but we have four potential alternative methods.
If I arrange the accepted methods for the diameter of the explosion in order from smallest to largest, it should illustrate my point:
The newest method is almost 20 times larger than each of the other methods used to find the size of the explosion. If each method is valid to use, then only one of these method is highly inconsistent with the others.
Moreover, each of the reference objects used in the other methods for calculating the explosion are full visible and all pixelscaling done on-screen. I used the Hokage monuments heads, two methods for the cliff that the monument is situated on, and the depth of Pain's crater in Konoha. While none of them of course have an explicitly stated size value, we can put some trust in Kishimoto for keeping size relatively consistent.
After all, for calcs to work for this at all, we're assuming that Kishimoto is trying to be consistent between the size of the Forest of Death and the size of the explosion, otherwise there'd be no point in pixelscaling them. So there shouldn't be any real issue in having to find the size of these reference objects by comparing them to things Kishimoto has drawn.
If we have to balance on scales between "What is Kishimoto most likely to been consistent with", then Methods 1 through 4 show greater relative consistency with each other, than Method 5 does with any other method. If Kishimoto really intended for the explosion to be 21 kilometers across, why did he draw nothing else consistent with that except for the partially visible Forest of Death?
So in my personal evaluation, the newest proposed method is both the most unreliable method from the list, and the most inconsistent in terms of results.
Its reliability largely hinges on how you feel about 20 km FOD which iirc was stated in the text, and outside of the river is very consistently illustrated.
If anything the four options that don't take into account the 20 KM forest in the same panel as the explosion would be less reliable since they don't use stated information backed by the lore and illustrated consistently both times this section of the village was depicted.
Why would pixel scaling various parts of Konoha, some of which are unrelated shots to the feat entirely, be more reliable?
And if we all do agree that Kishi's illustration of Konoha can be inconsistent from shot to shot, wouldn't the panel the feat takes place in have more precedence here? Especially since it's the only calc taking into account an area with an actual stated size?
If you still believe the calc in the OP to be perfectly valid for use still, that doesn't inherently mean that the other methods are rendered invalid and can't be used. There are some options we can go for:
Use the more consistent results
As I laid out above, there is greater consistency in the already existing methods. Just because the newest one is mathematically valid doesn't mean it is the one we have to use. We can just continue using the currently accepted one, with the other calculations acting as support for it. By comparison the newest method has no additional support.
Average the results
If all five methods are valid, then a compromise solution to ensure that all valid size scalings are accounted for (so we're not just dismissing the inconsistent result, or favoring the inconsistent result above the others), is to produce an average calculation of all five methods. This represents a fair middle ground without skewing to the most extreme results.
Upper and lower bounds
Instead of averaging, we acknowledge that the explosion's size isn't completely certain since it depends on what exactly you go by to measure it. With multiple valid frames of reference, we can say that the explosion is "At least 978 meters across", going by one point of comparison, and it goes "up to 21,000 meters", this reflects the variability in the methods while accomodating the newest method as an upper limit for its size. Given the uncertainty of the method I raised above, this is better than relying on it as a definitive result and ignoring all other evidence.
I understand the skepticism, especially with all the inconsistency we see in various shots of Konoha we've been given over the years.
But skepticism shouldn't take precedence over the surprisingly large amount of lore and narrative evidence that was gone over in the previous thread that the forest in the panel with the feat is the very same forest that we already have a stated radius for, it really doesn't make sense for this to be less than a solid rating for Arc's calc, if not a likely 21,000 meters at worst.
I didn’t even know this existed. Does Damage want to still use the old calc we have been using or take Arc’s math and apply it to the old calc? (I’m hella dumb pls forgive me)
I'm fine conceding to this. Although I think the upper bound should be labeled "possibly" instead of "up to", since "up to" implies the technique varies in power, but what we'd be compromising on here is "it's at least this level, but it has a decent possibility of being that level".
If you wouldn't mind pinging Clover (sorry Clover lol) and see if this compromise is amicable that'd be great.
Anyways, I suppose this works? I'm a bit taken aback as to why we're suddenly going this route when the original intention of the thread is just to do the exact same accepted method but with a newly accepted size, I think that's worth calling into question, but I don't necessarily dislike it either
Personally I'm more in favor of just not using the new method.
The last thread's argument regarding Forest of Death size relied on the assumption that the landscape will be consistently designed. The positioning of the river in particular was of importance to accept that forest as the FoD.
This calc uses a forest that does not match the way the river is supposed to flow through it (and is also not confirmed circular). Identifying this as the forest of death would mean we need to argue that the forest of death is not drawn consistently and doesn't have the identifying features used in the last thread.
The argumentation, viewed in its entirety, appears self-contradicting. It first argues that the forest in the scan from the last thread has 20km size, due to being the Forest of Death. It argues it is the Forest of Death, because it's a circular forest with a river through the middle near Konoha. Then in this calc identifies a forest near Konoha without a river through the middle, but running past its side instead, as Forest of Death. That goes contrary to the properties used in the first step of argumentation.
All we really know is that this is a patch of wood near Konoha. We can't even be sure it's circular. I don't think being roughly in the right location alone should be viewed as sufficient, if it simultaneously has the river position issue.
And then there's Damage's consistency stuff on top.
But if everyone else wants the possibly rating, we can do that, too.
That seems to be the middle ground people are fine with. By people I mean the other two CGM who commented. And if you're fine with that as the consensus compromise, I'm fine conceding there.
thanks for commenting
