Minecraft feats removal

[Theidkguy137]

Will the Ender Dragon ramming be removed? It's a really iffy calc and, in real life, diamond is fragile compared to how diamond is in minecraft. I think explosion and blocks destruction feats should be removed too since they use destructive values from real life which are inconsistent with the ones from minecraft and create a lot of problems in scaling. For example, obsidian is somehow harder to destroy than literal iron.



I think we should continue the revisions by removing any calculations which require destructive values from real life for blocks. I know that would mean removing 90% of the feats from the verse, but, again, materials in real life have different destructive values than the ones in minecraft, and using the ones from real life creates a lot of noticeable inconsistencies with attack potency. By calculating feats with the real life rules and logic, you are breaking the rules and logic of the game itself.



I mean, Steve's kinetic energy calculations from than one calc have been accepted and so is Ender Dragon's GPE. We can keep those for example.

 

[AyOgUyS]

I'll reply to this in a min

 

[Theidkguy137]

I'll reply to this in a min

I have a feeling I'm gonna get debunked hard. Like embarassingly hard

 

[AyOgUyS]

Will the Ender Dragon ramming be removed? It's a really iffy calc and, in real life, diamond is fragile compared to how diamond is in minecraft. I think explosion and blocks destruction feats should be removed too since they use destructive values from real life which are inconsistent with the ones from minecraft and create a lot of problems in scaling. For example, obsidian is somehow harder to destroy than literal iron.

I'm not gonna lie this actually sounds like a good idea. It's hard to just dismiss the hardness values as Gameplay Mechanics when we can visually see how they effect explosions. It's blatantly and frankly, objectively true that a Creeper explosion breaks basalt easier than cobblestone and that while a Diamond Pickaxe can easily break iron, it takes a long while to break obsidian.

I think we should continue the revisions by removing any calculations which require destructive values from real life for blocks. I know that would mean removing 90% of the feats from the verse, but, again, materials in real life have different destructive values than the ones in minecraft, and using the ones from real life creates a lot of noticeable inconsistencies with attack potency. By calculating feats with the real life rules and logic, you are breaking the rules and logic of the game itself.



I mean, Steve's kinetic energy calculations from than one calc have been accepted and so is Ender Dragon's GPE. We can keep those for example.

Does the size of TNT and Creeper explosions change depending on how many blocks are destroyed? If the actual radius of the explosions is always the same, we can still calculate AP from it.

 

[Theidkguy137]

Does the size of TNT and Creeper explosions change depending on how many blocks are destroyed? If the actual radius of the explosions is always the same, we can still calculate AP from it.

The radius most likely is always the same. I think the radius would be equal to the number of dirt a tnt/creeper can destroy, since dirt is one of the easiest blocks to destroy in minecraft. I honetly don't know a better way to estimate the radius. I'm not much of a minecraft expert.

 

[ARandomDude127]

Ouuu shi, Minecraft nerfs

The radius most likely is always the same. I think the radius would be equal to the number of dirt a tnt/creeper can destroy, since dirt is one of the easiest blocks to destroy in minecraft. I honetly don't know a better way to estimate the radius. I'm not much of a minecraft expert.

The radius depends on what’s being blown up, in MC certain blocks have a higher Blast Resistance value than others. Stuff like Glass, Dirt, Wool & Wood are vaporized instantly while things like Stone and Cobblestone are slightly more resistant, so some will survive while others won’t, so the radii can slightly vary.

And then there are things that completely stonewall explosions, like Obsidian or Ancient Debris.

 

[AyOgUyS]

The radius depends on what’s being blown up, in MC certain blocks have a higher Blast Resistance value than others. Stuff like Glass, Dirt, Wool & Wood are vaporized instantly while things like Stone and Cobblestone are slightly more resistant, so some will survive while others won’t, so the radii can slightly vary.

Could we do like "Varies from [Low End AP rating via calc of explosion size against dirt] to [High End AP rating via calc of explosion size against idk diamond?]"

 

[Theidkguy137]

Ouuu shi, Minecraft nerfs

The radius depends on what’s being blown up, in MC certain blocks have a higher Blast Resistance value than others. Stuff like Glass, Dirt, Wool & Wood are vaporized instantly while things like Stone and Cobblestone are slightly more resistant, so some will survive while others won’t, so the radii can slightly vary.

And then there are things that completely stonewall explosions, like Obsidian or Ancient Debris.

Wouldn't the radius be the distance from where a player can be damaged by a certain explosion. Does that vary depending on the blocks?

 

[Randomuser3412]

The radius isn't "changing" depending on the blocks surrounding it. The explosion can be hampered significantly by the blocks preventing it from reaching its full radius, though. A TNT block's maximum range in hitting other blocks is 6.9 meters.

 

[ARandomDude127]

The radius isn't "changing" depending on the blocks surrounding it. The explosion can be hampered significantly by the blocks preventing it from reaching its full radius, though. A TNT block's maximum range in hitting other blocks is 6.9 meters.

Oh phooey, I was wrong. That’s mb fellas

6.9

Nice

 

[Theidkguy137]

Oh phooey, I was wrong. That’s mb fellas

Nice

I think a better solution would be just asking Microsoft "Hey man, what are the destruction values (Joules/cubic centimeter) in terms of fragmentation, violent fragmentation and pulverization for every block in minecraft?"

 

[AyOgUyS]

I think a better solution would be just asking Microsoft "Hey man, what are the destruction values (Joules/cubic centimeter) in terms of fragmentation, violent fragmentation and pulverization for every block in minecraft?"

It's against the rules for us to frequently harass and ask powerscaling-related questions to authors of verses. To my knowledge, some users have actually gotten in trouble because they asked a powerscaling-related question to the author of Tensura. This does not seem like a good idea and even if we went and did it, it's unlikely that we will receive any actual answer.

 

[Theidkguy137]

It's against the rules for us to frequently harass and ask powerscaling-related questions to authors of verses. To my knowledge, some users have actually gotten in trouble because they asked a powerscaling-related question to the author of Tensura. This does not seem like a good idea and even if we went and did it, it's unlikely that we will receive any actual answer.

Honestly asking authors powerscaling questions is a dumb idea from the start. It's the same as asking confirmation for your favourite ship

 

[IDK3465]

Hoo boy, this is going to be a headache, I can tell. I’ll need to reply later since I’m kinda busy rn, but I’ll get back asap

Btw, I just want to say that a lot of other sandbox games have similar issues with inconsistent destruction values, so what’s decided here will probably effect those verses as well

 

[IDK3465]

Ok, I’m back

The way Minecraft treats the durability of blocks in-game is certainly a bit inconsistent with their real-world counterparts, this is something Mojang themselves have admitted to in the past, and it is an issue for us when it comes to handling destruction feats in the game. That said, I don’t think removing these feats entirely is that good of an idea:

Minecraft is not a physics engine, it is a sandbox survival game, the goal of the devs is not to be 100% accurate to real world physics, it’s to provide a fun and engaging experience for the players. Even if Mojang wanted to be scientifically accurate, figuring out the actual mechanics behind object destruction is simply too demanding for such a simple game for it to be realistically implemented. As such, we’re left with the simplified, imperfect system currently in the game, which results in weird stuff like basalt being weaker than regular stone, or diamond being super strong despite being incredibly brittle irl.

However, that does not mean we shouldn’t treat stone like stone, or diamond like diamond. I doubt it was the devs’ intent to make these materials totally incompatible with their irl versions, especially when other content, like education edition, make a point to show the similarities to the real world things. The only time I think the devs intentionally wanted to make a material significantly different from its irl self, is obsidian, which is treated less like brittle, volcanic glass and more like a magical, ultra powerful super-material.

If it was up to me, rather than removing every destruction feat, we should instead give all our explosion calcs a range of potential values, so something like “[cobblestone], possibly [diamond]” so that way we aren’t ignoring any feats, but we still acknowledge it’s hard to decide on a specific value due to the inconsistencies at play.

Idk, I’d like to see what you guys think, I’m not entirely sure myself on how to handle this, and there’s a lot more than just Minecraft that relies on these sorts of calcs

 

[Theidkguy137]

Ok, I’m back

The way Minecraft treats the durability of blocks in-game is certainly a bit inconsistent with their real-world counterparts, this is something Mojang themselves have admitted to in the past, and it is an issue for us when it comes to handling destruction feats in the game. That said, I don’t think removing these feats entirely is that good of an idea:

Minecraft is not a physics engine, it is a sandbox survival game, the goal of the devs is not to be 100% accurate to real world physics, it’s to provide a fun and engaging experience for the players. Even if Mojang wanted to be scientifically accurate, figuring out the actual mechanics behind object destruction is simply too demanding for such a simple game for it to be realistically implemented. As such, we’re left with the simplified, imperfect system currently in the game, which results in weird stuff like basalt being weaker than regular stone, or diamond being super strong despite being incredibly brittle irl.

However, that does not mean we shouldn’t treat stone like stone, or diamond like diamond. I doubt it was the devs’ intent to make these materials totally incompatible with their irl versions, especially when other content, like education edition, make a point to show the similarities to the real world things. The only time I think the devs intentionally wanted to make a material significantly different from its irl self, is obsidian, which is treated less like brittle, volcanic glass and more like a magical, ultra powerful super-material.

If it was up to me, rather than removing every destruction feat, we should instead give all our explosion calcs a range of potential values, so something like “[cobblestone], possibly [diamond]” so that way we aren’t ignoring any feats, but we still acknowledge it’s hard to decide on a specific value due to the inconsistencies at play.

Idk, I’d like to see what you guys think, I’m not entirely sure myself on how to handle this, and there’s a lot more than just Minecraft that relies on these sorts of calcs

I think that's a pretty reasonable approach. While yes, inconsistencies are pretty hard to ignore, Minecraft pretty much doesn't follow real life physics most of the time. If you were to ask me, I honestly don't know...

 

[AyOgUyS]

How about: "At least [Tier when not using block destruction values], possibly [Tier when using block destruction values]"?

Seems like a good compromise to me.

 

[Theidkguy137]

How about: "At least [Tier when not using block destruction values], possibly [Tier when using block destruction values]"?

Seems like a good compromise to me.

Idk man that would seem a little weird.
I think, at least for now, things can be let as they are regarding Minecraft blocks scaling. Minecraft is just inconsistent as a whole. The disadvantage is that the scaling can get messy in calculations depending on the blocks used. This is similar to how some fictional characters can blow up literal Planets yet they struggle to punch through a wall.

 

[BeautifulDuwanged]

I think the diamond destruction value in particular should be removed, as the method for getting the pulverization value is incorrect and grossly inflated. On the other hand, I think if these sorts of calculations are used, stone would make the most sense to use. Stone is the most abundant in the world, lacks the most inconsistencies, fragments from block destruction if not pulverized, and is also used for other feats like the Silverfish in regards to destruction values; it is also one of the common levels of hardness in the game (1.5) and shares such values with many of the typical "stone"-ish blocks in the game, so it would be a good benchmark for looking at other materials like sandstone that are weaker and have less pulverization value as a result.

Though, I also think the fact that blocks have inconsistent destruction values means they should be removed, since basalt - a block weaker than stone and currently used - has a higher pulverization value, meaning that the game treating specific blocks as weaker and thus destroying larger quantities becomes vastly inconsistent. Other notable sandbox games like Terraria that base off most of their stats from destruction calculations don't face these issues (and explosive immunity is independent of block hardness if not a progression-skipping block) so this shouldn't impact other series without being a case by case basis.

Ultimately, I think just axing these kinds of feats feels the most reasonable to me since - as we can already tell by the diamond pulverization - the actual hardness and durability of blocks varies far too much from their real world counterparts to the point that it makes calculations inconsistent, specifically with high-end values like basalt.

 

[Theidkguy137]

I think the diamond destruction value in particular should be removed, as the method for getting the pulverization value is incorrect and grossly inflated. On the other hand, I think if these sorts of calculations are used, stone would make the most sense to use. Stone is the most abundant in the world, lacks the most inconsistencies, fragments from block destruction if not pulverized, and is also used for other feats like the Silverfish in regards to destruction values; it is also one of the common levels of hardness in the game (1.5) and shares such values with many of the typical "stone"-ish blocks in the game, so it would be a good benchmark for looking at other materials like sandstone that are weaker and have less pulverization value as a result.

Though, I also think the fact that blocks have inconsistent destruction values means they should be removed, since basalt - a block weaker than stone and currently used - has a higher pulverization value, meaning that the game treating specific blocks as weaker and thus destroying larger quantities becomes vastly inconsistent. Other notable sandbox games like Terraria that base off most of their stats from destruction calculations don't face these issues (and explosive immunity is independent of block hardness if not a progression-skipping block) so this shouldn't impact other series without being a case by case basis.

Ultimately, I think just axing these kinds of feats feels the most reasonable to me since - as we can already tell by the diamond pulverization - the actual hardness and durability of blocks varies far too much from their real world counterparts to the point that it makes calculations inconsistent, specifically with high-end values like basalt.

Yeah, you get calculations which vary quite a lot depending on the blocks used. Removing those calculations entirely would probably put Steve at Wall level based on current calculations I have seen. The Creeper is probably Small Building level with the same logic, and stronger enemies (Iron Golem, Wither, Warden, Jean?) would be Building level due to scaling to Jean?'s GPE which has been accepted. I calculated Ender Dragon's kinetic Energy using values accepted in calculation blogs (Her speed being 24 m/s, mass = 22222222 kg), and it's 6399999936 Joules, which is Building level+
Now, there are little chances that they are just gonna wipe out all of the calculations like that, but if they do, here's my scaling prediction:
Characters who were intinially Small Building / Building level will become Wall level
Characters who were Large Building level will be Small Building level
Charged Creeper will probably reach Small Building level+
The Town level powerhouses become Building level+

 

[IDK3465]

I think the diamond destruction value in particular should be removed, as the method for getting the pulverization value is incorrect and grossly inflated.

I think removing the diamond pulv value from the site would require its own discussion tbh, I don’t think we should tackle that in a Minecraft thread

On the other hand, I think if these sorts of calculations are used, stone would make the most sense to use. Stone is the most abundant in the world, lacks the most inconsistencies, fragments from block destruction if not pulverized, and is also used for other feats like the Silverfish in regards to destruction values; it is also one of the common levels of hardness in the game (1.5) and shares such values with many of the typical "stone"-ish blocks in the game, so it would be a good benchmark for looking at other materials like sandstone that are weaker and have less pulverization value as a result.

I agree with this though, if we keep these feats (which, imo, we should) stone should be our baseline for all the calcs. It’s consistent and reliable enough that there really shouldn’t be an issue with using it.

Though, I also think the fact that blocks have inconsistent destruction values means they should be removed, since basalt - a block weaker than stone and currently used - has a higher pulverization value, meaning that the game treating specific blocks as weaker and thus destroying larger quantities becomes vastly inconsistent.

Again, I don’t think this is enough to write off the feats entirely, I think we just need some way of acknowledging the variability without cutting them out, like setting a low-end and a high-end for every destruction calc depending on the material.

Other notable sandbox games like Terraria that base off most of their stats from destruction calculations don't face these issues (and explosive immunity is independent of block hardness if not a progression-skipping block) so this shouldn't impact other series without being a case by case basis.

I was mainly thinking of stuff like some Roblox games, such as Arcane Odyssey, which also rely on in-game destruction calcs with varying materials that’d effect the final value. Also, I doubt Terraria is completely 100% accurate to real-life destruction values like you imply, I’m gonna try to see the list of block hardness to check, because that simply CAN’T be the case with the simple system it uses.

 

[IDK3465]

I was mainly thinking of stuff like some Roblox games, such as Arcane Odyssey, which also rely on in-game destruction calcs with varying materials that’d effect the final value. Also, I doubt Terraria is completely 100% accurate to real-life destruction values like you imply, I’m gonna try to see the list of block hardness to check, because that simply CAN’T be the case with the simple system it uses.

Ok, I just checked:

• Apparently, obsidian is hard enough to require gold equipment to destroy, even though it's incredibly brittle irl
• Gold is on the same level as regular-ass stone
• Titanium is stronger than mythril and crimstone and can SOMEHOW no-sell explosions, and cobalt can do the same.

Terraria is absolutely affected too

 

[BeautifulDuwanged]

I think removing the diamond pulv value from the site would require its own discussion tbh, I don’t think we should tackle that in a Minecraft thread

I just think this is self-evident for the feat. The diamond end is five hundred times its lowest ends and diamond isn't demonstrably that much more durable as a block than its Iron cousin, even without applying scrutiny to the actual measurements of pulv. values.

Again, I don’t think this is enough to write off the feats entirely, I think we just need some way of acknowledging the variability without cutting them out, like setting a low-end and a high-end for every destruction calc depending on the material.

I think this is a reasonable argument as the fact that these calculations require a method that is inconsistent within Minecraft thus makes them inconsistent to apply, especially with how much greater they are than other notable feats in the series.

I was mainly thinking of stuff like some Roblox games, such as Arcane Odyssey, which also rely on in-game destruction calcs with varying materials that’d effect the final value. Also, I doubt Terraria is completely 100% accurate to real-life destruction values like you imply, I’m gonna try to see the list of block hardness to check, because that simply CAN’T be the case with the simple system it uses.

Terraria explosions destroy all blocks within their vicinity if it's not past your pickaxe power, which is a game mechanic to stop progression skips and primarily only applies to fictional materials. No blocks provide explosion resistance nor vary from one another, so their destruction values - unlike Minecraft, in this case - would contradict one another. Not super knowledgeable on Arcane Odyssey but unless the destruction contradicts the toughness of materials with their real life materials they should still be fine.

 

[BeautifulDuwanged]

Ok, I just checked:

• Apparently, obsidian is hard enough to require gold equipment to destroy, even though it's incredibly brittle irl
• Gold is on the same level as regular-ass stone
• Titanium is stronger than mythril and crimstone and can SOMEHOW no-sell explosions, and cobalt can do the same.

Terraria is absolutely affected too

Titanium is weaker than this and pure gold is malleable so neither of these points are really big. Obsidian is obviously brittle in real life but the only reason it is locked behind gold pickaxes is for advancements. All of the hardmode ores are immune to explosions and are primarily fictional despite being based off of real world metals, so they should not count towards this; they are also only immune to these explosions during stages of progression where you must mine them until you get stronger explosives.

Also, as mentioned in my prior reply, none of this hardness actually matters. Explosives destroy all blocks in their radius with no discrimination including past explosive-proof blocks and block hardness does not influence that, so they wouldn't be impacted by the argument of "their block hardness is inherently contradictive means you cannot reasonably apply destruction values". This is conflating two systems in Terraria that don't really impact one another, and the cases of hardmodle ores being immune to explosions is because they are inherently stronger (and mostly fantasy) metals that are produced by magic.

Even though this is derailing the conversation, I think overall axing Minecraft destruction values due to self-inconsistencies would not be a big deal for other series on the wiki unless those series have inconsistencies that are just as bad.

 

[IDK3465]

I just think this is self-evident for the feat. The diamond end is five hundred times its lowest ends and diamond isn't demonstrably that much more durable as a block than its Iron cousin, even without applying scrutiny to the actual measurements of pulv. values.

I still think discussing if we should even use the feat in the first place is more important than which end to use.

Terraria explosions destroy all blocks within their vicinity if it's not past your pickaxe power, which is a game mechanic to stop progression skips and primarily only applies to fictional materials. No blocks provide explosion resistance nor vary from one another, so their destruction values - unlike Minecraft, in this case - would contradict one another. Not super knowledgeable on Arcane Odyssey but unless the destruction contradicts the toughness of materials with their real life materials they should still be fine.

Titanium is weaker than this and pure gold is malleable so neither of these points are really big. Obsidian is obviously brittle in real life but the only reason it is locked behind gold pickaxes is for advancements. All of the hardmode ores are immune to explosions and are primarily fictional despite being based off of real world metals, so they should not count towards this; they are also only immune to these explosions during stages of progression where you must mine them until you get stronger explosives.

Also, as mentioned in my prior reply, none of this hardness actually matters. Explosives destroy all blocks in their radius with no discrimination including past explosive-proof blocks and block hardness does not influence that, so they wouldn't be impacted by the argument of "their block hardness is inherently contradictive means you cannot reasonably apply destruction values". This is conflating two systems in Terraria that don't really impact one another, and the cases of hardmodle ores being immune to explosions is because they are inherently stronger (and mostly fantasy) metals that are produced by magic.

If both the hardness values and the blast resistance values are determined by game mechanics, wouldn’t that make them even worse to use in calcs? If the type of block has zero impact on its ability to take an explosion, then doesn’t that also produce a lot of clashing results? What if there was 3 different calcs that used soil, rock, and gold to calc the explosion, doesn’t that seem a bit inconsistent to you?

Whatever, this is kinda derailing, like you said, we should really just focus on Minecraft.

 

[IDK3465]

Personally, I simply hate excluding feats unless if there’s absolutely no conceivable way for them to work in the story, especially when it comes to feats that are ostensibly just “character/thing destroys a lot of rocks.”
Taking the mechanics of a game that is not bothered in having an accurate physics system, and scrutinizing it to such a degree to the point where rocks can’t be treated as f*cking rocks is just… stupid to me, no matter how many arguments have been made for it. Call me a fool, call me a coward, but I just don’t like the goal of this thread (though, I do agree it’s inconsistent and we should list low-ends for these feats)

 

[Theidkguy137]

Personally, I simply hate excluding feats unless if there’s absolutely no conceivable way for them to work in the story, especially when it comes to feats that are ostensibly just “character/thing destroys a lot of rocks.”
Taking the mechanics of a game that is not bothered in having an accurate physics system, and scrutinizing it to such a degree to the point where rocks can’t be treated as f*cking rocks is just… stupid to me, no matter how many arguments have been made for it. Call me a fool, call me a coward, but I just don’t like the goal of this thread (though, I do agree it’s inconsistent and we should list low-ends for these feats)

you fool! you coward!
Ok now seriously, yeah, I see your point. While hardness and blast resistance are pretty hard to ignore as simply game mechanics since they actually affect the gameplay, it would seem weird not to treat something called "stone" As literal stone. The problem isn't the scaling, its the calculations: The values for Attack Potency / Durability change a lot based on what material is used for calculations. What end do we use? How do we know which end is more accurate? That's why I said that we should remove them. Not because we shouldn't treat rocks as rocks, but because it creates so mamy inconsistencies to the point where we actually don't know what material and what end we should actually use for calculations.
Now, I am not saying that they should be removed, maybe there is a better solution to this. I do think that we should at least avoid scaling explosions of blocks and block destruction feats since they give off different values based on what blocks are used.

 

[Theidkguy137]

Lowkey kind of regretting that I made this CRT

 

[AyOgUyS]

Lowkey kind of regretting that I made this CRT

Why?

 

[Theidkguy137]

Why?

Because I don't think it will go anywhere

 

[IDK3465]

you fool! you coward!
Ok now seriously, yeah, I see your point. While hardness and blast resistance are pretty hard to ignore as simply game mechanics since they actually affect the gameplay, it would seem weird not to treat something called "stone" As literal stone. The problem isn't the scaling, its the calculations: The values for Attack Potency / Durability change a lot based on what material is used for calculations. What end do we use? How do we know which end is more accurate? That's why I said that we should remove them. Not because we shouldn't treat rocks as rocks, but because it creates so mamy inconsistencies to the point where we actually don't know what material and what end we should actually use for calculations.
Now, I am not saying that they should be removed, maybe there is a better solution to this. I do think that we should at least avoid scaling explosions of blocks and block destruction feats since they give off different values based on what blocks are used.

I'm very much a "if you can't pick one over the other, just list them both" kinda guy, so the best option imo is to list a low-end (probably stone) and a high-end (copper or diamond) for each feat, since I don't really see a way to pick one over the other without getting too pedantic over it.