Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
High 8-C was another proposal for Boss Durability - my preference lies in favor of 8-C boss durability, but there’s a lot of variance.This thread has been a doozy. Personally, I wouldn't scale them to 8-B, given what was put here on the thread. An 8-B explosion shaves off a very big part of their HP, and I'm of opinion that, in a video game like Minecraft where technically even the weakest, damage-dealing mob can still damage something like the Ender Dragon, even if only by chip damage, means we need to be more strict and not consider scaling neither significantly weak monsters damaging the tougher ones, nor a mob having a lot of difficulty tanking an attack.
If I'm not mistaken, earlier on the thread, High 8-C was proposed, and it seems fine to me, but I do not consider myself a Minecraft specialist.
Like I said, saying that the feat is impossible to accurately calc is fine, since it can be interpreted in many different ways. However it's still a physical feat - it's done by ramming, there's no indication that it's done with some sort of hax like a passive EE aura (especially not BFR, since in a Minecraft end world with set borders, destroyed blocks won't appear anywhere) and the only anti-feats I've debunked above as game mechanics. The Dragon destroying blocks being game mechanics argument has also been debunked previously - the statement was made eons ago, and if the developers didn't want it to be part of the game, they would have changed it by now, especially since the Dragon fight itself has been changed dramatically since then.We have absolutely no idea what kind ofndestruction the Dragon performs, so the feat is unquantifiable.
I mean that just seems like more edits. While it is agreed upon I think we should wait until this thread concludes, then we can get the edits done in one sweep.Not really... almost everyones city block level, possibly small town level. So im just thinking remove small town so everyones just city block level for now and then the actual scaling can be discussed. Low 7-C removing can be done rn pretty easy unless its better to just wait for the scaling to be fully decided... (also spiders durability is weaker than silverfish for some reason so that might need changing)
It being a game mechanics wasn't the argument. We don't know at all how those blocks were destroyed, so cant assume any valid end for the calculation.If i can give any other take, i do find the logic of the ender dragon not being 8-B questionable. Writing off his most common feat of pulverising blocks as game mechanics/outlier because he doesnt destroy endstone. If anything him not destroying endstone is game mechanics (or the dragon just not wanting to destroy the blocks?) since yknow, it would make navigating the end 20 times more annoying and probably result in the island getting destroyed. Even him pulverising basalt (and i think glass) would be city block tier
Iron Golems kinda curbstomp almost every other mob though. Maybe Pillagers, Vindicators etc can backscale in "large enough groups" like they did before, since now that's canon (you can find Iron Golems trapped in cages in Pillager outposts now). But yes, I do think Iron Golem scaling is fine - the main reason they can't defeat a Wither normally is because before it gets to half health, it always flies above the Iron Golem's reach.Neutral on mobs scaling but at best backscale. I mean, an iron golem being only a threat to the wither when its reduced to half its life under specific circumstances... that alone would backscale them to at best half their strength and zombies are way weaker
Oh, well in that case, shouldnt blocks disappearing completely on contact make it blatantly pulverisation (besides water)?It being a game mechanics wasn't the argument. We don't know at all how those blocks were destroyed, so cant assume any valid end for the calculation.
No, it makes it an unknown case. Could be SubAtomization for all we know.Oh, well in that case, shouldnt blocks disappearing completely on contact make it blatantly pulverisation (besides water)?
Assuming that it destroys stuff differently depending on whether it's a liquid or not is cherrypicking feats and requires more assumptions than assuming it's all the same.Or it just makes water evaporate and at least pulverises anything it touches?
Unless you wish to Pulverize water? Evaporation is vaporization...The water in the nether is evaporating from heat so theres no reason to assume the same should apply to the dragon (especially when uknow, itd make the game lag like hell).
Because they're destroyed the same way? That's literally all we know... Which is why the feat is unusable because it can be interpreted in literally any way.Why are we even assuming it has have the same effect on a solid as a liquid because of the way theyre destroyed? As if the developers have any reason to bother creating a different effect for the solid blocks being hit by the dragon in the first place (which again would lag the game to hell and back) assuming they even had a way to animate pulverisation differently.
No, the argument I'm proposing is that we don't have any speck of a clue what the Dragon is doing, it gives us literally nothing for evidence. So we have absolutely to make any kind of assumption from. Not even an ability, we don't know what it's doing, so it warrants nothing but Game Mechanics"we dont know the dragons method" isnt an argument that contradicts anything unless youre arguing he does it with hax.
But we don't know that it is doing it with physical force, nothing in the game suggests that.If youre destroying something by ramming into it with physical force you scale to it (netherite blocks included).
No. Pulverization would be turning it to dust or something similar, not removing it without any indication as to how. Especially when this very same effect also works on Water.If its completely gone afterwards then its blatantly pulverisation.
We've seen so many feats of physical force in Minecraft, Silverfish breaking blocks leaves particles, Explosions do too, and leave blocks on the ground. Zombies crack and break down doors, also with particles. The Dragon makes blocks vanish as it flies with no drops, no particles, nothing.Sorry but theres nothing remotely undefined about ramming into something with physical force and destroying it beyond questionable mechanics.
The current calcs actually take into account the blocks that are left behind by Creeper explosions.Normal creepers are high 8-C and charged are 8-B. Iron golems and such can also tank the latter i dunno if anybodys brought up. But still, creepers pulverising blocks is a little questionable when they leave stuff behind. I think theyd be around half as much if we used violent frag though.
Just tested it and they can destroy netherrack. Where did you get this from?is there any game mechanicy reason for creepers to be unable to destroy netherrack? I didn't even know they couldn't until now