- 143
- 97
INTRODUCTION:
Hello it's me again, I am the guy that shrank sage Centipede and accidentally upscaled the meteor by 2 tiers (whoops) I am back at it again, this thread will be much shorter because I am busy irl at the moment so I'll get straight to the point
IMPORTANT(1):
Obviously no hate towards any of the people who's calcs I'll be discussing, I just think the calc itself can be better
IMPORTANT(2):
This recalc will not affect inverse narrative scaling as ENO and Saitama both scale to far more impressive feats so this shouldn't be a controversial suggestion as it will only really affect ENO's size, width and PE
AFFECTED CHARACTERS/STATS:
-PE of ENO
-size of ENO
-heldback serious punch AP
CALCS I WILL BE TALKING ABOUT:
1)https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/U..._chertovsky_huge_assholes_and_one_very_strong
2)https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:NikHelton/New_OPM_feats#2.29_AP_and_LS
THREADS I WILL BE REFERENCING:
1)
vsbattles.com
2) https://vsbattles.com/threads/opm-j...fected-items-mentioned-in-description.187680/
The following 2 recalc threads were accepted so I will be using them as supporting arguments, as my main argument for this thread is pretty much the same as the previous 2 threads I made, as I have the same issue with all the calcs I've made threads on, that issue being calc stacking and too many assumptions being made, with all of this out of the way let's get to the issue I have with the current calc
ISSUE:
My main issue with helton's ENO calc is the same issue I had with the sage and meteor calcs that being calc stacking, too many steps and assumptions, I've brought this up before but I'll restate it for anyone who hasn't seen the previous threads, according to the vswiki's rules on calc stacking:
"However, even for these parameters calc stacking is avoided as much as possible. That means that results taking less such steps are usually taken over results that rely on more calc stacking."
So let's look at the ENO calc and count up how many steps and calc stacking layers it has:
1) Assume height of Tareo
2) Use Tareo height to calc MA floor height
3) Use floor height to calc diameter of MA crater
4) Use diameter of first crater to calc diameter of second crater
5) Use width of second crater to calc distance to the ocean
6) Use distance to ocean + panel height to calc size of ENO's eye
7) Use ENO's eye to calc his length and width
8) Use length and width to calc PE
9) Saitama serious punch calc
As you can see 1 assumption + 8 layers of calc stacking, the previous 2 calcs got a recalc for MUCH less with the same reasoning
SOLUTION:
What I propose we should do to in order to recalc ENO's PE + size/length more accurately with fewer steps is to use the same method I proposed in my sage thread, that being to use the aircraft carrier as a measuring stick, now there is already a calc that tries to do just that, HOWEVER Helton had the following issue with it, the calc that uses the aircraft carrier to measure ENO is not accurate because in the panel it uses to compare ENO's eye to the aircraft carrier, ENO is NOT at it's peak size as it is constantly absorbing water and growing bigger, he provides a panel that occurs after the intial panel in which ENO's eyes are shown to be MUCH larger than the aircraft carrier compared to the intial panel, I agree with Helton's issues regarding that calc, HOWEVER I believe there is still a way to make the aircraft carrier calc work
So here is my proposal:
1) Assume the length of the aircraft carrier in image 1 (in the sage recalc the model of the aircraft carrier was assumed to be the USS Gerald R. Ford, credit for the recalc goes to my GOAT Therefir)
2) Convert the length of aircraft carrier into pixel measurements and then use that to find the height of ENO's eyes at their largest using image 1
3) Use the height of ENO's eyes to find it's height and width using image 2 (or a more suitable/consistent image if the CG can propose a better alternative), now in image 2 ENO is significantly smaller compared to image 1 HOWEVER the ratio of the size of ENO's eyes to height of it's body should be consistent meaning for eg if ENO's eyes are 10x smaller than it's body and the eyes are 10m then ENO's height is 100m, and if the eyes grow to 100m then the length and width will grow proportionally etc so imo using image 2 should be fine
4) recalc ENO PE and recalc heldback serious punch
Images(1-2):
imgbox.com
imgbox.com
NOTE: I am trying out a new image uploading site (imgbox instead of imgur because imgur no longer works in the UK even with a VPN so I apollgize if the images don't load)
Agree: Therefir(staff)
Disagree:
Neutral:
Hello it's me again, I am the guy that shrank sage Centipede and accidentally upscaled the meteor by 2 tiers (whoops) I am back at it again, this thread will be much shorter because I am busy irl at the moment so I'll get straight to the point
IMPORTANT(1):
Obviously no hate towards any of the people who's calcs I'll be discussing, I just think the calc itself can be better
IMPORTANT(2):
This recalc will not affect inverse narrative scaling as ENO and Saitama both scale to far more impressive feats so this shouldn't be a controversial suggestion as it will only really affect ENO's size, width and PE
AFFECTED CHARACTERS/STATS:
-PE of ENO
-size of ENO
-heldback serious punch AP
CALCS I WILL BE TALKING ABOUT:
1)https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/U..._chertovsky_huge_assholes_and_one_very_strong
2)https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:NikHelton/New_OPM_feats#2.29_AP_and_LS
THREADS I WILL BE REFERENCING:
1)
OPM-Centipede too big pls nerf (AP + size downgrade, affected characters listed in thread)
This thread has been created so I can make a case as to why I believe that Sage's centipede's current length and width and the AP derived from said length and width is inaccurate and needs to be recalc'd. (IMPORTANT NOTE: I have no ill will towards NikHelton, this is NOT meant to be a hit...
The following 2 recalc threads were accepted so I will be using them as supporting arguments, as my main argument for this thread is pretty much the same as the previous 2 threads I made, as I have the same issue with all the calcs I've made threads on, that issue being calc stacking and too many assumptions being made, with all of this out of the way let's get to the issue I have with the current calc
ISSUE:
My main issue with helton's ENO calc is the same issue I had with the sage and meteor calcs that being calc stacking, too many steps and assumptions, I've brought this up before but I'll restate it for anyone who hasn't seen the previous threads, according to the vswiki's rules on calc stacking:
"However, even for these parameters calc stacking is avoided as much as possible. That means that results taking less such steps are usually taken over results that rely on more calc stacking."
So let's look at the ENO calc and count up how many steps and calc stacking layers it has:
1) Assume height of Tareo
2) Use Tareo height to calc MA floor height
3) Use floor height to calc diameter of MA crater
4) Use diameter of first crater to calc diameter of second crater
5) Use width of second crater to calc distance to the ocean
6) Use distance to ocean + panel height to calc size of ENO's eye
7) Use ENO's eye to calc his length and width
8) Use length and width to calc PE
9) Saitama serious punch calc
As you can see 1 assumption + 8 layers of calc stacking, the previous 2 calcs got a recalc for MUCH less with the same reasoning
SOLUTION:
What I propose we should do to in order to recalc ENO's PE + size/length more accurately with fewer steps is to use the same method I proposed in my sage thread, that being to use the aircraft carrier as a measuring stick, now there is already a calc that tries to do just that, HOWEVER Helton had the following issue with it, the calc that uses the aircraft carrier to measure ENO is not accurate because in the panel it uses to compare ENO's eye to the aircraft carrier, ENO is NOT at it's peak size as it is constantly absorbing water and growing bigger, he provides a panel that occurs after the intial panel in which ENO's eyes are shown to be MUCH larger than the aircraft carrier compared to the intial panel, I agree with Helton's issues regarding that calc, HOWEVER I believe there is still a way to make the aircraft carrier calc work
So here is my proposal:
1) Assume the length of the aircraft carrier in image 1 (in the sage recalc the model of the aircraft carrier was assumed to be the USS Gerald R. Ford, credit for the recalc goes to my GOAT Therefir)
2) Convert the length of aircraft carrier into pixel measurements and then use that to find the height of ENO's eyes at their largest using image 1
3) Use the height of ENO's eyes to find it's height and width using image 2 (or a more suitable/consistent image if the CG can propose a better alternative), now in image 2 ENO is significantly smaller compared to image 1 HOWEVER the ratio of the size of ENO's eyes to height of it's body should be consistent meaning for eg if ENO's eyes are 10x smaller than it's body and the eyes are 10m then ENO's height is 100m, and if the eyes grow to 100m then the length and width will grow proportionally etc so imo using image 2 should be fine
4) recalc ENO PE and recalc heldback serious punch
Images(1-2):
imgbox - fast, simple image host
Use imgbox to upload, host and share all your images. It's simple, free and blazing fast!
imgbox.com
imgbox - fast, simple image host
Use imgbox to upload, host and share all your images. It's simple, free and blazing fast!
imgbox.com
NOTE: I am trying out a new image uploading site (imgbox instead of imgur because imgur no longer works in the UK even with a VPN so I apollgize if the images don't load)
Agree: Therefir(staff)
Disagree:
Neutral:
Last edited:
