Man, Minecraft Tiers Suck Right Now

[Moritzva]

It seems to, but looking deeper into it, it is simply a matter of basic scaling we already use.

This debate, down to it's core, is more or less a disagreement over personal opinion. I don't see why mobs won't scale if they can harm an enemy The Ender Dragon can also harm.

I could say more but it's late and I won't be able to articulate myself that well.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Antvasima]

However, within games chip damage is an ongoing trend, even for enemies that are far less powerful than others, so I agree with Agnaa about that it seems far safer to only scale the ones that do comparable damage to the bosses.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

There are a lot of verses that have little to no lore, but it's still considered contradictory to make even the most basic enemies scale from the protagonists. The only time I consider mooks to be on par with the protagonists is if it's a fairly realistic setting where the main character isn't all that strong to begin with. Considering Grand Theft Auto or Battlefield are examples of verses where literally anyone can die from bullets, and have almost no superhuman feats whatsoever. So everyone is fodder anyway there.

I'm no Micecraft expert, but game mechanics can be made all over the place; chip damaging to be AP, or getting massively damaged by living by a hair are both things we often try to avoid using as a justification for downscaling. A bee stinging an elephant in the eye doesn't make the bee downscale from the elephant. Or even stuff like, a normal human little kid bit a strong villain's finger hard enough to make them bleed also is the definition of creating paradoxes and loopholes. And also, explosive items that literally total a bunch of mooks while barely denting bosses are also things to look out for.

 

[Moritzva]

The latter portion of your argument, DDM, is not the situation here imo. The only situation where "chip damage" is really taking place is with silverfish, and I've made my stance on those clear.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't know why 1 damage (half a heart) doesn't scale but 2 damage (one heart) does. The Ender Dragon's melee attacks deal 10 damage, the wings deal 5, the player's weakest sword starts at 4, and their strongest weapon deals 10.

I do not understand why you only draw the line at 1 not counting.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Agnaa and Medeus. We should use the compromise solution instead. Damage levels in games do not tend to be linear.

@Damage3245 @Eficiente

You tend to have a rationally critical eye. Are you willing to help out here?

 

[Moritzva]

With all due respect, perhaps we should look into the opinions of actual Minecraft supporters rather than simply grabbing even more random staff members who don’t know anything?

At this rate we’re going to drag over 1/2 of the staff team to what amounts to a single thread and most of them don’t actually know about the verse, and the ones that do agreed to it.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, this is more about the principle of the issue, as I understand it.

 

[Moritzva]

It’s really not, having at least alright verse knowledge is pretty important to sorting this out and a majority of who you are calling in has none of that.

A majority of staff, including Prom, and a majority of Minecraft supporters, including staff Minecraft supporters, are okay with this. I dunno who else you want to say “yes”, because you seem to continue pushing for people to say “no”.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am very uneasy with this, given that it doesn't seem to make sense, go contrary to all we know about game mechanics in general, and set a bad precedent, in combination. As such, it is potentially dangerous and unreliable to not use a compromise instead of a complete overhaul.

 

[Moritzva]

And as I’ve explained, it’s very much in-line with what is acceptable and people have been using “game mechanics” as a buzzword to oversimplify the argument in such a way that non-knowledgeable people will look at it and assume the revision is bad because they don’t know any better.

 

[Antvasima]

And why should we make a special exception to not consider this in the same way as fodder chip damage is counted for other game verses?

 

[Moritzva]

Because it’s not chip damage.

I don’t know who gave you that idea but the damage values are far from chip damage for all cases except Silverfish, which I specifically pointed out aren’t 8-B because they rely on swarming the player with chip damage to kill him. Other enemies can actually hurt Steve reasonably until he gets insanely high-end armor, so before that point, they can downscale from The Ender Dragon and more directly scale to a weaker, lesser armored Steve (which can still take hits from The Ender Dragon, mind you).

 

[Agnaa]

I would rather wait a bit longer since I didn't make the "Only scale enemies that deal the Ender Dragon's damage" argument until today, and since then around 11 people have commented on it, less than half the number of people who evaluated the OP.

But quite a few of them still agreed with you, and it sucked that it didn't really feel like I had a back and forth or engagement with my arguments for most of them, but I guess that's just how threads are sometimes.

I don’t know who gave you that idea but the damage values are far from chip damage for all cases except Silverfish

I have repeatedly given all evidence possible to show that Silverfish isn't an exception here. You just haven't responded to it, aside from making one false statement (saying that the player's regeneration outheals a single Silverfish).

 

[Moritzva]

I literally had Saikou stand in place with some basic armor with about two dozen Silverfish around him for over a minute straight and he took just about no damage, I think that qualifies as chip damage. Zombies, or any other mob, would be a different story.

 

[Agnaa]

basic armor

two dozen Silverfish

I thought we were talking about no armor? And with one lone Silverfish? Why are you switching up the evidence all of a sudden? Your argument was that they were only a threat in swarms, why are you showing a swarm not being a threat as a counterexample?

I tested myself a lone silverfish and a lone spider, no armor and with unenchanted diamond armor. They both did little but some damage with no armor, and almost no damage with diamond armor.

I don't see other mobs being a different story.

 

[Moritzva]

I didn’t switch up my evidence. I didn’t happen to test out “1 silverfish vs. a no-armor Saikou” several months ago when I was making the video. That’s all.

As for 1 silverfish vs. no armor... it’s still chip damage? I don’t see why it isn’t, it takes an incredibly long amount of time for a silverfish to kill you. Hell, tomorrow, I might test it out myself.

And how is comparing a silverfish’s damage to no armor, to a spider against diamond armor, fair at all? That’s completely unreasonable, especially when Steve can survive Ender Dragon hits outside of diamond armor as well.

 

[Agnaa]

Your argument this whole time was "They're only a threat in swarms", why is your evidence that they're not a threat alone... Them in a swarm vs a fully-iron-armored player? You also repeatedly said that one couldn't out-damage a player's natural regen, which is just objectively false.

I am sure a silverfish is not a danger to an unarmored player, the damage output is so incredibly low you're liable to out-recover the damage it deals.

I don't see why a silverfish is chip damage and a spider isn't. A spider only does 1 half heart more damage.

I wasn't comparing a silverfish's damage to no armor to a spider against diamond armor. I explicitly said I tested them both against both.

 

[Moritzva]

You’re nitpicking where no problem exists. Your regeneration covers silverfish very well, and even if the silverfish eventually kills you, it takes an ungodly long amount of time. Spiders don’t have this problem.

You’re answering your own question here, Agnaa. You’re acting like my argument was just a singular, very specific scenario, when it never was, and it just goes to show that this argument is going nowhere.

Again, this is going in circles and I do not feel that this argument is going on in good faith.

 

[Agnaa]

Name me a time. I'll go record how long it takes for a silverfish and a spider to kill a player. So name me a time that you think would be long enough to be considered "chip damage".

 

[Moritzva]

I’ll go record it myself when it’s not 3:00 in the damn morning.

 

[Agnaa]

Hmm, actually testing it out made me realize that there's a difference in attack speed too, if we're just going through the "time it takes to kill people" route. I noticed that the Silverfish attacked way slower.

To make a much more extreme example, Phantoms take far longer to kill players than probably even Silverfish do, but they deal the same amount of damage as spiders.

I wonder how you'll slot this alongside your knowledge that swords always have higher DPS than axes, they just have less raw damage since they attack faster.

Second off, DPS is about speed. AP is attack power, and you're debating speed. Just because an attack is slower doesn't mean it doesn't have that manner of AP. So, this is also false.

 

[Moritzva]

The fact that the argument has gone full circle to claiming speed = AP shows me enough that there’s no need to continue this.

Let’s let the votes decide, for real this time.

 

[Damage3245]

Well, I've been summoned to this thread but while I have played Minecraft a lot in the past I don't think I can consider myself that knowledgeable on how it should be ranked.

Part of the issue being that while entities in Minecraft take damage to their health bar after being hit, they are physically unaltered by attacks until they actually die. Both a punch and a massive explosion will do equal "damage" in practical terms so long as the entity survives.

Scaling durability to how many hearts they have... doesn't seem right to me, but I don't think I can judge this one.

 

[Agnaa]

Jesus man I wasn't claiming that speed equaled AP. I thought your original argument against it was a good point, but noticed that your idea of "Look at how long it takes to kill the player to decide whether it's chip damage or not" itself conflates speed and AP. If the spider attacks twice as fast, it'll kill the player almost 4x quicker, despite only doing twice as much damage.

You stop an argument while accusing me of doing what you're doing. Very cool.

 

[Moritzva]

If your argument is that we shouldn’t judge based on how long it takes to kill the player, then I’ll concede on that since it’s a fair point. I still believe the silverfish is chip damage, though.

If necessary, if we decide to replace the current (incredibly flawed and incorrect) tiering with my model, we can then discuss if Silverfish count as chip damage (9-A) or not (8-B).

 

[Agnaa]

I don't know how great of an idea it is to revise the pages and then immediately make a revision because the revision we just made had some errors, especially when we know those errors in advance.

Ant and I have recently been trying to get that Silverfish-esque stuff out of the way recently, rather than trying to get y'all to stick with the current model.

 

[Crabwhale]

This thread really is going around in bloody circles.

 

[Antvasima]

Unfortunately, yes. It is due to that we are discussing whether or not Minecraft should be judged by a special standard for itself alone.

 

[AKM sama]

Reading the Game Mechanics page, I don't see the mention that we don't use it only because of lore, or that we can use it when lore is not present. Sure the examples all have something to do with lore. But I think we should at least make it clear, that either don't use game mechanics at all, or only use it when no lore is present, something that isn't clear to me reading through the page.

Even if we go the latter route, I don't see why everybody should scale to the main boss. I know they can all hurt Steve based on game mechanics but wouldn't it make more sense to follow it all the way through and base it strictly on damage points? Like Mori said, the cutoff damage point was decided to be 1/2 heart due to silverfish. Then why not only scale those characters to the main boss who can deal equal or greater amount of damage in damage points. It surely looks better than scaling all those who deal far less damage than the main boss to the main boss imo.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with AKM. Thank you for helping out.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

AKM makes sense; and just a heads up; having big bars of HP is more like an endurance stat and not a durability stat. Durability is simply being able to stand up to a strong hit while moderate damage at worst.

 

[Moritzva]

The matter is that there are a lot of enemies who don’t actually deal significantly less damage than The Ender Dragon, just a little bit - of course, there are quite a few who are a large amount below, but the issue is defining a point where the damage is too low and they don’t scale. Personally, I set that as Silverfish, but if other people have other rationales, I don’t mind hearing them.

I do not believe we should disregard all mobs below The Ender Dragon, even if only below it’s damage by a tiny margin, as outside of scaling, though. A large number of them can certainly hurt Steve to varying degrees.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. It seems like we are starting to get somewhere here.

Agnaa, where do you think that we should draw the line regarding comparable damage levels?

 

[Agnaa]

I'd say two and a half hearts. Assuming we're using Normal difficulty's damage numbers as canon, that's the Ender Dragon's weakest attack that isn't merely a DoT effect.

I think there is reason to sorta consider that a lowball. iirc ED's AP comes from a charge which better equalizes to frontal melee damage (5 hearts).

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you. Would that be acceptable to you Moritzva?

 

[Moritzva]

Are we saying all enemies at 2 1/2 are 9-A, or below 2 1/2?

 

[Antvasima]

You will provably have to use quite a lot of "At least" ratings, if there are not a lot of feats to scale from.

 

[Agnaa]

2 1/2 and above are 8-B, possibly Low 7-C. 2 and below are 9-A.