• 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

So we really have degenerated from "Scale mobs based on arbitrarily-chosen damage and HP values" to "Just scale everything down to the smallest chip damage to the game's final boss."

Awesome.
 
I can tell from your tone that further debate is going to be ill-spirited and aggressive, and the strawman you present shows either a purposeful disregard or lack of understanding of either Minecraft, my point, or scaling as a whole.

Can someone grab my vote count from before and update it? I'll be taking a break from this.
 
Mori, CRTs aren't only decided by votes, and your arguments are losing weight, if you're not even going to bother pushing for them further I guess I can remind that if the status of this verse remains as it is it's best being removed for the most part out of not being indexable in lack of proper scaling.
 
That's in the worst case scenario, then again, as said before, but it may get there if the stuff remains as it is.
 
Bobsican said:
Mori, CRTs aren't only decided by votes, and your arguments are losing weight, if you're not even going to bother pushing for them further I guess I can remind that if the status of this verse remains as it is it's best being removed for the most part out of not being indexable in lack of proper scaling.
Click to expand...
You can't just invalidate my argument and say it's "losing weight" because you disagree with it, and waiting for me to leave due to IRL commitments just to say "Quick, guys, let's delete Minecraft!" is one of the many reasons why this site has a problem with stone wall arguments.

Let me have a break, we aren't even making progress in our debate.
 
Bob if you're gonna contribute such an asinine statement to an already charged debate then don't contribute mate. Simple as.
 
Yeah idk why Minecraft would need to get deleted because of these discussions here.
 
Oh sorry, I meant that if that was the case for too long, I didn't oppose continuation on the discussion.
 
I don't see why we can't scale weapons using damage values. My biggest concern now is the fact that the game doesn't have lore or any in-verse statements that we can use to perform scaling.

Yes, the verse may have progression, but it doesn't make you better, it makes you different. Sure you find inherently rarer materials later on, but some early game materials are still objectively better at dealing damage.

Also I don't like this argument about game mechanics. If a gold sword was designed to do less damage and break faster than a silver one, that's not game mechanics, that's just the property of gold.
 
Sir_Ovens said:
I don't see why we can't scale weapons using damage values.
Click to expand...
That kind of scaling isn't allowed on this wiki
Sir_Ovens said:
My biggest concern now is the fact that the game doesn't have lore or any in-verse statements that we can use to perform scaling.
Click to expand...
There is some lore from what I've heard
Sir_Ovens said:
Yes, the verse may have progression, but it doesn't make you better, it makes you different.
Click to expand...
Wood<Chain<Silver<Gold<Diamond<Netherite
Sir_Ovens said:
If a gold sword was designed to do less damage and break faster than a silver one, that's not game mechanics, that's just the property of gold.
Click to expand...
Gameplay doesn't always reflect lore also your scaling chain is wrong it seems
 
Using damage values is very much accepted if we have reason to believe that's acceptable.

Also gold is blatantly <<<<< everything else and unless you provide me an in-universe explanation for why it is otherwise, that is just objective fact.
 
I was under the impression that character stats and damage values were only ever used if we had reason to believe that we're canon.

i.e. they need to be proven usable, rather than being proven unusable.
 
Ican'tthinkof1goodname said:
That kind of scaling isn't allowed on this wiki

There is some lore from what I've heard

Wood<Chain<Silver<Gold<Diamond<Netherite

Gameplay doesn't always reflect lore also your scaling chain is wrong it seems
Click to expand...
Did you just call Iron, Silver, and put it below Gold..?

... Right, well, naturally I agree with Ovens. Game mechanics doesn't mean we can't use basic common sense, that a weapon that's stronger than another weapon is indeed stronger than that weapon.
 
I bet Morti probably is editing his comment while type this so be aware of this
Moritzva said:
Did you just call Iron, Silver, and put it below Gold..?
Click to expand...
Yes because common sense and general knowledge although calling Iron Silver was a mistake

Moritzva said:
... Right, well, naturally I agree with Ovens. Game mechanics doesn't mean we can't use basic common sense, that a weapon that's stronger than another weapon is indeed stronger than that weapon.
Click to expand...
That's what I expected. I recommend you relook at the Game Mechanics page and a logic page because a weapon can't be stronger than itself.
 
Agnaa said:
Why can you not conceive of only scaling the Ender Dragon to mobs with damage/HP values equal to or above the Ender Dragon's damage? I'm just making the damage/HP values listed in the OP non-arbitrary and based on the same thing you're basing the rest of your scaling on.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't this be a more logical compromise solution?
 
I think it's much more logical than the current suggestions of either scaling to everyone, or scaling to everyone except the 1 weakest enemy, and makes me much less hesitant to apply it.

Yes because common sense and general knowledge although calling Iron Silver was a mistake

Minecraft goes against the common sense in this way, by having some Gold tools weaker than Iron tools, and giving all of them an extremely short durability.

That's what I expected. I recommend you relook at the Game Mechanics page and a logic page because a weapon can't be stronger than itself.

He wasn't saying A > A. He was saying if A > B (in damage values), then A > B (in our indexing).
 
... Ican't, iron is literally leagues above gold in terms of protection and strength. Have you played Minecraft, ever?

Like... It's the third best material in the game. Iron, then Diamond, then Netherrite. Seriously, do you actually know Minecraft at all? I'm not even trying to be rude but I'm actually questioning your knowledge here if you're not only making such a mistake, but doubling down on it.

And second of all, I suggest you read my post again because you clearly missed my point. If Weapon (X) is, in-game, stronger than Weapon (Y), I do not see why we shouldn't assume that yeah, Weapon (X) is stronger than Weapon (Y) without any outside evidence. That's only logical.

I'm seriously questioning if you know enough about Minecraft to really give reliable input.
 
Antvasima said:
Wouldn't this be a more logical compromise solution?
Click to expand...
I already gave my logic for why we don't need to do it. The Ender Dragon can take hits from Steve, and even the opposition agrees that Steve can hurt The Ender Dragon. Mobs can also take hits from Steve. So, most mobs downscale from The Ender Dragon.

The Ender Dragon can hurt Steve. Other mobs can also hurt Steve. So, they up/downscale (depending on the mob).

I see no reason why we should betray this principle.
 
Moritzva said:
.. Ican't, iron is literally leagues above gold in terms of protection and strength. Have you played Minecraft, ever?
Click to expand...
I used to play Minecraft but stopped a year ago
Moritzva said:
And second of all, I suggest you read my post again because you clearly missed my point. If Weapon (X) is, in-game, stronger than Weapon (Y), I do not see why we shouldn't assume that yeah, Weapon (X) is stronger than Weapon (Y) without any outside evidence. That's only logical.
Click to expand...
Correct until you got to the words "without any outside evidence" as that's not what we do, we use canon not information we don't know
Moritzva said:
I'm seriously questioning if you know enough about Minecraft to really give reliable input.
Click to expand...
Memory loss does exist
 
And my response is, if we're not using damage values, we should use the lower and consistently increasing feats that the game has rather than scaling them all to the highest feat in the series done by the final boss. (Reminder that your argument against this being wrong is either "Look at these damage values" or "The current profiles place an ability where it shouldn't be", the latter of which just needs ability revisions, the former of which is addressed below).

And if we are using damage values, we should only scale AP when they deal more damage than the Ender Dragon, and only scale HP when they have more HP than the Ender Dragon can deal.

I really don't want to endlessly run through this but I hope this condensed framing can make you sympathetic to my side. If not, then I guess our discussion ends here.
 
Agnaa said:
And my response is, if we're not using damage values, we should use the lower and consistently increasing feats that the game has rather than scaling them all to the highest feat in the series done by the final boss.

And if we are using damage values, we should only scale AP when they deal more damage than the Ender Dragon, and only scale HP when they have more HP than the Ender Dragon can deal.
Click to expand...
Downscaling exists, first off. We don't only upscale.

Second off, if you think that The Ender Dragon's feat is too big or that we should scale everyone to different feats, take that up with the people who thought 8-B Ender Dragon was fine. As it is, basic scaling logic scales a majority of the verse to 8-B. If you don't like that number, well, take it up with the people who made 8-B.
 
I know that downscaling exists, but when we downscale and find a bunch of characters with lower feats we often use those lower feats instead. If we find an increasing hierarchy of characters being "slightly stronger" going from 9-A to 8-C to High 8-C to 8-B to Low 7-C, I don't think we usually just backscale them all from the highest feat. Even if that is technically possible downscaling that much gets extremely dicey to people, from my experience.

I don't think it's basic scaling logic, I think you're misusing it.

But I guess we'll never reach an agreement so we can leave this discussion here.
 
Your argument revolves around the jump from 9-A to 8-B being too large.

My logic doesn't care what the feats calc out at. It's simply scaling. Some people don't think Minecraft should be 8-B at all, well, all the power to them! Well, right now, it is. And if 8-B zombies sounds weird, you can bet it sounds weird to me too, but the scaling affirms it, so until 8-B is debunked, that's where we are.

The problem with downscaling in your sense is that, by that logic, 9-As and High 8-Cs are still damaging an 8-B yet aren't 8-B, and I disagree with that notion. If a presumed High 8-C or 9-A hurts an 8-B, then they scale to 8-B, and that is indeed how our wiki works.

But you're right, we are at a standstill and neither sides seem to be changing opinions.

So, how do we progress? It has been quite a while, but most people still are in favor of applying the revisions, including a majority of staff members.
 
Only responding to the newer stuff...

C'mon dude, I even mentioned the 8-C and High 8-C feats.

I think everyone's logic should care what the feats calc out at. A 9-A scaling to a slightly-higher-end 9-A requires a lot less scrutiny than a 9-A scaling to a 3-A. You cannot just do feat-agnostic scaling and expect to get sensible results for most verses. Have you not heard of outliers and consistency? I shudder to think what your methodology would do to all other verses if you did your scaling as if there were no calcs to inform it.

I'd hope that those people would now be more willing to, at the very least, apply the compromise solution of scaling by the damage value those feats had, but most of them haven't responded since so I guess we can't know for sure.
 
A world in which damaging an 8-B doesn't make you 8-B is not a world I wish to be tiering in.
 
I agree with Agnaa about that it seems considerably more reliable to only scale characters with comparable AP to the Ender Dragon, and use other feats to scale regular fodder enemies.
 
I agree that we should avoid scaling the strongest bosses to fodder enemies.
 
It is the other way around. Moritzva apparently wants to scale the fodder enemies to the strongest bosses.
 
Is there anything that actually makes Zombies and stuff scaling to Diamond gear Steve an outlier tho?

One argument I can see is that you have to deal with these mobs at the very beginning, but then there's also the possibility that the higher level gears aren't entire tiers above

When we don't scale common enemies to the MC there's usually lore reasons or a huge discrepency, in Minecraft when there's only gameplay I don't see you will find the former and I personally wouldn't use the latter

Agreeing with downscaling for now
 
I have nothing to say about this, because I am completely unfamiliar with Minecraft and have no context or knowledge to draw on when analyzing this thread. It looks mostly reasonable from a glance, but I know so little about the source material that I frankly don't trust my own input on it.

I'd also prefer not to be dragged into CRTs for characters/verses/etc. I don't have working knowledge of right now. I'm working on numerous revisions of my own as of late, and I don't have the time or the leftover attention span to address threads centered around topics I know nothing about.
 
Last edited:
Agnaa said:
I eagerly await your 1-A Batman/Iceman, and 4-A Goomba threads.
Click to expand...
That would be a more alluring argument if I actually knew or cared about DC or Mario on such a level.

... anyways, I suppose I can be patient, though I'm a bit tired and won't update votes for a while. They are still decisively in favor, across staff and non-staff alike, however.

I have also contacted all the Minecraft supporters I know, and they've given their feedback in the past, equally majority in favor (Edward, Saikou, Abstractions, Wokistan, etc.)
 
Well, the main problem here is that this goes so much against our standard conventions, and as such might set a very bad precedent.

Can you remind me why you think that Agnaa's compromise solution is a bad idea please?
 
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
646
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
990
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