• 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.

Man, Minecraft Tiers Suck Right Now

If Agnaa believes what he does, that's fine, but we've gone over the exact same analysis before and I still firmly disagree for the reasons I've mentioned above.

At this rate, it's but a matter of "Agree to disagree", as neither of us are changing our minds anytime soon. That "agree to disagree" is about 21-5 in the CRT's favor.
 
Agnaa does make good points, but I suppose that Moritzva does have the numbers on his side here, yes
 
I am reading the arguments right now. Give me a bit to respond.
 
Thank you for helping out. It is appreciated.
 
Both sides seem to have pretty fair reasons imo. And I say this while being unfamiliar with the game itself, but I am uneasy with scaling literally everyone with the final boss. Just because there is no lore about this, doesn't make the idea less iffy which is entirely based on game mechanics.
 
Minecraft is a game of little scaling and small intervals of progression. I understand your point, and I can see why it might look daunting at first, but the small bits of lore we do have paint regular enemies as legitimate threats, even as the game progresses (even if less of a threat, they're still dangerous), such as with the Enderman example iirc.

Regardless, thanks for your input.
 
Yes. Thank you for helping out. I agree with your assessment.
 
It is true that a lot of "game mechanics" are reflected in animatics (including an animation where Piglins absolutely beat the shit out of two full-iron players, further confirming that even rather strong armor isn't actually enough to contend based on lore itself - see, The Nether Update animation), though I'm tenacious to refer to everything as game mechanics.

Really though, until you get to full Netherrite, most mobs are still a sizable threat to you (as lore itself establishes), and even then, we have no reason to give Netherrite it's own tier rather than upscaling.
 
There's a lot of discussion I'm late to here, so I'll just say what I believe based on the original post

Yes. 9-A physically, 8-B, possibly Low 7-C with equipment makes infinitely more sense that "early, mid, late game" tiers. I've said it once and I'll say it again. You cannot say those really exist since like, no Minecraft world starts the same and has any real story progression. I shouldn't have to tell anybody here who knows the game how different each playthrough can be. Hell, tell me how many times you've started a game and fought a Silverfish before a Zombie or an Enderman. I've seen people take down Iron Golems before even entering the Nether.

We really can't base equipment off of game progression either. Imo the natural abilities of The Player and the equipment can be separated by tabbers and when it comes to VS threads, people can just specify what The Player is using. Simple as that.

I apologize if any of this has already been said in the posts above it's just a lot to read lmao.
 
So what should we do here?

Should I notify more staff members to comment here?
 
I'm not sure who else to grab. I've already talked to just about every person I know, staff member or not, who knows Minecraft. Personally, I believe we are safe with applying these revisions.
 
A large portion of his videos are speculation. That’s not even joking- every video is practically 95% speculation, with 5% of it being made up of random evidence that happens to support the speculation.
 
Moritzva:

I have forgotten most of this discussion at this point. Can you summarise the arguments and write a tally of who agrees with what please?
 
@Ican'tthinkof1goodname The mobestiary is the only piece of lore with any relevance to this thread, and it has one piece of evidence that supports this change (states that Endermen are still a threat to a player fighting the Ender Dragon, meaning that early-game enemies should still be comparable) and one piece of evidence that goes against this change (states that the player should wear enchanted diamond gear when fighting The Wither, meaning that an early-game player with a wooden axe shouldn't be seen as comparable).

I'm not aware of anything else from it that's directly relevant to this thread one way or the other.
 
Antvasima said:
Moritzva:

I have forgotten most of this discussion at this point. Can you summarise the arguments and write a tally of who agrees with what please?
Click to expand...
It is fine if Agnaa or some other staff member handles this as well.
 
Agnaa is correct, the Mobeastiary is effectively neutral on the matter for a variety of reasons.

Overall, in quite simplified terms,

I stand that, in a lack of any reasonable way to separate Minecraft progression based on actual facts and guidelines, we have to use what we can - namely, eliminating progress-based scaling and instead comparing relative damage values for weapons to get an idea of how they scale. Normally, scaling like this would only be secondary to lore, but due to a lack of lore to use, it is fine to use what we can especially when progression is rather weak and slight anyways.

The counterargument, which I disagree with, is that we can guess and inference progression tier gaps (iirc we assume Late Game is diamond, though I’m not sure where we cut the line between Early and Mid-Game equipment), and that we shouldn’t use game mechanics at all, even when there isn’t any lore to supplement or take precedent over it.
 
Moritzva:

Thank you for the summary. If your side of the argument has considerably more support, I suppose that it can probably be applied in lack of better options then.
 
tl;dr I think the current way of handling things is fine, it's worked fine for ages, and I think that Moritzva's counter-argument against the current scaling of "Wooden axes deal the same amount of damage as diamond swords" comes down to taking damage values too literally, i.e. game mechanics.

I don't have the tally on me but I think Moritzva's argument has close to two dozen people supporting it, while there's only 3 or 4 detractors.
 
Well, if this goes against our rules for Game Mechanics, and would set a bad precedent in that regard, it doesn't really matter if many people agree with it, as it is still against our rules.
 
My counterpoint is that the idea of Game Mechanics is an argument best used to have lore take precedent over game mechanics - opposed to, as our current system, absolutely nothing at all. We don't actually have firm basis at all for what we base our tiers off of, and Minecraft already has incredibly slow and slight scaling as it is.

Basically, game mechanics is a good counter-argument when there's actually a better alternative. We do not have such. So far, we've randomly allocated abilities, equipment, and similar based off a rough idea of "Yeah, that sounds late game to me", or based on entering The Nether, or similar, when... none of those correlate to power or scaling.
 
Yeah that's just a disagreement of philosophy, rather than an explicit breach of the Game Mechanics page. I think that Game Mechanics can be attributed to intuition; that we don't need lore telling us not to scale chip damage to the most powerful things in a game, or to scale the weakest tier of weapons to the strongest tier of weapons. But the Game Mechanics page's examples all involve lore contradicting those game mechanics.
 
Last edited:
Okay. In that case this can probably be applied in lack of better options.
 
Antvasima said:
Okay. In that case this can probably be applied in lack of better options.
Click to expand...
Well, nearly the entire verse could be set to Unknown or be removed out of not being indexable on this regard. Minecraft uses heavily game mechanics to the point lore is nearly non existent for our purposes.
This would be too detrimental indexing wise, then again, but I guess some note on the verse page could go over this as it's a really odd case that could be bringed up in the future to exaggerate stats on other verses, but if you ask me I would support more a good chunk of the verse just being either set to Unknown or deleted out of scaling being virtually impossible without doing a fallacy with game mechanics.
 
Last edited:
Bobsican has a very good point in that this example could be used as a very destructive precedent for other verses in the future, and that it might be better to delete the verse if it cannot be tiered properly.
 
We do have alright precedent here, honestly. Feats do exist - scaling is the only question. "Unknown" isn't a reasonable or possible option given the fact that we very well do have a plethora of things to potentially scale to.
 
The problem is to what the scaling would go on each case, using game mechanics as a metric when they aren't even explicitly canon is a blatant fallacy on game mechanics, and sets a bad precedent as said before. There's no reason for this to be an exception, even if it's an iconic verse.
 
Again, as established, game mechanics is a problem and not used when there is lore that contradicts it. It is exactly what Agnaa said - intuition. No multipliers or anything like that, just intuition based on values that are supported by how slight the progression is in the game.

”Unknown” is absolutely not on the table and not a remotely sensible option. Even our current system is more reasonable than just ignoring all the calcs and feats we have for absolutely no reason. Ignoring game mechanics entirely, Steve can still beat The Ender Dragon, and several enemies are still a threat to him via normal means, so the scaling still adds up - my argument is simply creating a more definite line of judgement.
 
Scaling based on sheer "intuition" with no lore to back it up whatsoever borders into headcanon territory.
Yes, X is a boss, and so is Y, but trying to say that Y is stronger only out of doing more damage to the player (Especially if we're going to go as far as directly taking hearts as a metric) than X is questionable.
 
So your argument is that we should say an enemy (Y) stronger than another enemy (X), is in fact not stronger than enemy (X)?

Do you see the problem with this?

Please, tell me more about how an enemy stronger than another enemy is not stronger than that same enemy.
 
Well, it was an example meant to showcase how using in-game health meters as a way to measure directly as power level as questionable, I guess I could have worded that part better, as Y isn't necessarily stronger than X if we're going to measure exclusively with that regarding lore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

azontr
  • Locked
OMORI if it was good and didn't suck (OMORI Revisions)
2
Replies
76
Views
4K
azontr
azontr
Monsters_fight
Undertale Stats Upgrade
Replies
27
Views
647
Monsters_fight
Monsters_fight
Flashlight237
Minecraft CRT: Silverfish Abilities
Replies
27
Views
2K
Sparx_gaming
Sparx_gaming
Ednaxel2
  • Locked
Plants vs. Zombies Revisions Part 1: Attack Potency/Zomboss Upgrade
Replies
18
Views
991
FinePoint
FinePoint
StoneKillerz12
The Problems With Kingdom Heart's high-tier scaling (Part 1: True Kingdom Hearts Scaling)
Replies
13
Views
2K
Eseseso
Eseseso
Back
Top