I'm going to deny what you said, Deathhstroke, as that's not what I said. If (X) is a Creeper Explosion, then (X) is far, far, far higher than any of Steve's individual, non-Bed attacks. Which, mind you, is true. It's also substantially higher than his normal durability, too. But, given your words, we're already taking the premise that Steve's attacks can hurt The Ender Dragon - and we don't use an in-verse one-shot to grant multipliers, so it's entirely possible for Steve to be able to hurt The Ender Dragon and a Creeper explosion to do so without impacting scaling.
Now, what exactly says Steve scales to The Ender Dragon, as this is an absolute focal point of my argument? Well, it's simply... the lore itself, the lore you like to bring up so much. And, as I said, lore takes precedence over all else in situations - and while lore does not contradict my scaling at all, it does provide a very firm and absolutely undeniable starting point. That is, Steve can, w/ higher end gear, fight The Ender Dragon. So, that's step one. You even agreed to this yourself, so you absolutely can't deny this, as we're even using the same logic that lore takes precedence if there is a clash between lore and gameplay.
For the rest of my scaling chain, unfortunately, less lore exists to confirm nor deny my claims, so we move down to the second best choice. But at the same time, as there is no lore that blatantly denies or disagrees with my stance, it means the chain I propose is perfectly valid. Steve can very, very much fight The Ender Dragon as an undeniable fact we both agreed on. Lower mobs, like zombies and similar, can still take hits from him. Some mobs, like Vindicators and Piglin Brutes, can actually do more damage and be an even larger threat. That's all there is to it.
And creepers? It's simple. Lore confirms Steve scales to The Ender Dragon, though obviously his stats are a bit more akin to downscaling, given how The Ender Dragon is definitely a lot beefier than him. Then again, said downscaling wouldn't be too heavy, depending on Steve's gear - he can still hurt it varying amounts, depending on if he's swinging a stone axe, or a Sharpness V Netherrite axe. Overall, definitely scales. Creepers can hurt The Ender Dragon far more, but given it's higher durability, The Ender Dragon can survive. This is also true, and two people can hurt the same guy different amounts without breaking a scaling chain. I don't see the problem with this. A stronger attack hurts a durable foe more than a weaker attack, yes, but that doesn't mean the weaker attack didn't hurt him at all.
Now, Creepers hitting Steve, depending on his gear, can either kill him or heavily hurt him, depending on his gear. Naturally, end-game progression is difficult to mark exactly due to a lack of lore or anything establishing very clear progression lines, so splitting tiers up by gear is quite a difficult task. However, it makes sense that an attack that can hurt The Ender Dragon far more than he can, would also heavily hurt or kill him. That's fair, and again,
we don't grant multipliers from one-shots in fiction, so this does not mean the scaling chain is hurt. Just that Steve is lower, but depending on his gear, still strong enough to tank the attack. Barely.
Mobs downscale further, and a vast majority of them will die to a point-blank explosion, though it's possible for them to survive the explosion if they're a bit farther away. Regardless, that's also very, very simple and natural downscaling, as their durability is weaker than Steve's with highest-end gear.
I fail to see how any of this contradicts what I said, and like I said you would, you continue to conjure up impressions and ideas for "what I/my logic says" when I repeatedly correct you. Antvasima and others, perhaps it should be clear by now why I don't see validity in continuing debate that, indeed, is going in circles? Any time I say something, it goes as follows;
- I say (X).
- Deathstroke says I said (Y), and says that's wrong because (Z).
- I say that no, I did not said (Y), I said (X), and (X) counters (Z) very easily.
- Deathstroke ignores that and continues his argument as if I said (Y) without addressing my points.
Like, look. If Deathstroke is just that adamant to not use the fact that a Zombie can take multiple hits from Steve's weapons, and that Steve's low-tier axes are equal to high-tier swords, as facts and reasons for scaling, that's fine. But those are just opinions. All he has really said is repeating the point that he disagrees, over and over, but he hasn't really proved me wrong. He has an opinion, he doesn't like the method of which I'm getting my results. That's fine. I've explained why my method is valid (lore > gameplay, but when there is no lore to defer to, we can utilize elements of gameplay with care, elaborated on above) and if he doesn't agree with me still, there's no way for me to convince him of it.
I'll look at Gyro's points specifically soonish, I promise, I've just been stressed out this week so I'm trying to deal with things one at a time. So I'm not saying anything about Gyro's points, but I am claiming that even despite getting Deathstroke to admit that Steve scaling to The Ender Dragon is a truth we agree on, he still refuses to accept the fact that normal mobs can still take hits from Steve at all points in the game. And frankly, I don't think that's going to change.
Expect a post regarding Gyro's points soon. If you want, go ahead and look through past arguments, you'll see an awful lot of the above debate pattern of assuming facts about my argument that are absolutely and undeniably wrong, requiring me to debunk things that could be answered by just reading the original post. So, if anyone questions why I don't want to continue "moving in circles" like Antvasima himself said, it's because of this. I see no purpose in debating in a loop that is not ending, and I ask that nobody force me to debate in something that they, themselves, admit is going nowhere.
