- 1,160
- 186
- Thread starter
- #41
Bump
-
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.
Minecraft Steve: a correction, a question, and vs Terrarian debate...tion
- Thread starter DeathstroketheHedgehog
- Start date
- 336
- 34
"What? also, that doesn't answer my point at all."
No. You said "Isn't it counterproductive to be High Universal, possibly Moon Level?" I answered it with a "yes" it IS a counterproductive statement. It doesn't mean I CLAIMED fully agreed with it. Statement and claim has difference.
"How are you High Universal confirmed, but only 'possibly' moon level?"
Based on what I said previously. 5-C is based on blast resistance. High Universal is based on breaking. Creative mode alone could break them with breaking the "hardness" alone though. Basically the blast resistence does contradict the hardness in IRL logic. "At least 5-C, possibly High 3-A" sounds wrong because it's based on blast resistance creative mode, this is why I said "5-C is gamemechanic + creative mode".
"I even gave you the links to report the difference. You can't treat them as one and the same."
I already knew that you don't need to state the obvious. You claimed "I treated them as one" in reality I don't, at this point are you calling me a dumb?
"You used AntVenom as a source video for your argument, so apparently you think of him as a reliable resource."
What's wrong about that? If you have youtube-phobia just like people in the death battle community keep telling everyone "debunk" and "it's so wrong" then don't expect anything from me. No one in vsbattle, except @Saikou, are reliable on collecting information about indication of AP destruction in survival Minecraft in actual battle.
"Well here's another video from Antvenom explaining what blast resistance is. Your posted video is hardness value, not blast resistance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C4TmqKChG0"
Same to you back to you. "Your posted video is blast value, not hardness.". I don't necessarily need it. I already watched the video for long time, it's all based on fireball explosion in creative mode.
"destroying a block of obsidian would only be rated at least Small Building Level because even early game steve could break obsidian"
Uh oh, first tell that to @Saikou, I wouldn't argue anything about it, this isn't "retreat" I'm not expertises on Minecraft AP yet so save your argument and make CRT.
"Now you need to go and create a massive revision thread to downgrade the minecraft verse to Large Building Level at best (minus the cosmic characters) because you try to use game mechanics (hardness) to debunk "game mechanics" (blast resistance)."
You claimed I used gamemechanics, no your wrong, you're the one who uses gamemechanics (blast resistence) and you're telling me "breaking in survival mode" (hardness) is gamemechanics? That's utter absurd. Correction, I'm debunking the blast resistance because the "blast resistance to all unbreakable blocks" are contradictory, it'd be easier to believe it were gamemechanics, at the same time using creative mode made "destroying bedrock/commandblock via explosion" argument more fallacious.
"If you really believe what you are saying, make a thread to update the game mechanics page, because what you're trying to claim about blast resistance doesn't fit this wiki's description of game mechanics at all."
This your telling me implies "Nani?! blast resistance are gamemechanics? No, @David you're completely wrong, blast resistance ARE not gamemechanics so you've to do CRT on this wiki's gamemechanics page." basically you're bothering me and slapping the page on me because you disagree. I'm going to tell you this clearly, 1. "creative mode explosion destroys the unbreakable block (supposed to be UNBREAKABLE) via explosion, the explosion literally disintegrates the block through finite blast resistance.", 2. "breaking interaction is physical damage and explosion is physical damage, no difference.", 3. "blast resistance should never contradict the hardness from the game to IRL logic.", 4. "unbreakable blocks is canonical.", 5. "claiming unbreakable blocks were breakable by explosion is fallacious.", 6. "blast resistance to all unbreakable blocks contradicts the physical damage logic since destroying unbreakable blocks through blast resistance would ignore the physical damage through breaking interaction which classified destroying the unbreakable blocks via explosion/blast resistance as gamemechanics in game logic because it contradicts IRL logic.".
And Obsidian has nothing with my logic, Obsidian is in survival mode.
"But I'm not talking about Minecraft Story mode... that's a completely different game, and since apparently it's noncanon to the original minecraft game, you definitely shouldn't be bringing it up here. I don't even play that game, so I wouldn't even try to argue for Story Mode."
Dude are you serious? I could tell you're definitely serious. The current profile's stats for bedrock/commandblock dura are based on STORY MODE. Why I won't bringing it up here? You're definitely arguing me over bedrock/commandblock should be destructible while I heavily disagree with your logic, and debunk 5-C dura. Also you're using me to your logics as are nerfed Minecraft.
"In the actual minecraft game, in creative mode, bedrock and end portal frames can be placed and destroyed willingly."
So? It's just High 3-A AP no 5-C nerfed AP, end portal frames were intended to be indestructible because it's the only way to travel into End dimension so frames are idestructible blocks in canon, the frame being made of endstone is just aesthetic, and destroying End Portal frames in survival would breaks the lore.
"I don't know why you guys keep bringing up 'it can't be done in survival mode' to disprove a key for 'creative mode'."
/¯".
"If you agree that they are entirely different and separate coding, why are you acting like they are intertwined? They are not intertwined coding at all."
Because they're interwined physical damage at IRL logic. If we talk about coding further more it'd be sees it as gamemechanics.
"The point is that it is contradicted because not blast resistance, but HARDNESS Value is the one with game mechanics."
Your logic would contradict breaking in survival mode. It would make breaking in survival mode is gamemechanics by your logic. Hardness is based on "breaking" in Minecraft. You can't simply claim they're gamemechanics because it contradicts your blast resistance. While I debunked that logic because it's contradictory. "Also rip obsidian dura because obsidian was literally calced to be town level because of blast resistance. No explosion in survival mode alone can generate town level force, but guess what? This was allowed for obsidian." Do you agree accumulation damage are canon in Minecraft? Answer it just "yes" or "no" and nothing more. Because I wouldn't yet reveal my cards exposed, because I predicted you'll say "I disagree" and "It doesn't make sense at all" or do "debunk" for whatever reasons. Why I'm telling you this before I give my opinion about your argument? because it has to do or don't with it. Especially I haven't heard @Saikou agree with "base Steve could destroy obsidian, and Steve would generate 7-C force level" your logic because that'd remind me the vsbattle standard/rules.
"That response doesn't tell me anything, especially when you still failed to tell me what the 'growing tree' is to begin with."
Is my responsed "I don't know if they're still relevant these days if that tricks were still working on survival mode, so I've no clue. I've watched Minecraft videos for so long I could remember what those players did to breakthrough bedrocks upward in the Nether dimension." isn't enough?! Why don't you go search in youtube "how to break the bedrock in survival mode" and watch the videos. After watching the videos and if you aren't convinced with my "joke" referenced, and I will definitely give up telling you what the d_╠┤╠í╠ú╠á╠»╠ñ╠╣╠»╠ú╠ä╠ä╠à═è╠ä╠ô╠ê╠ü╠ò╠ò╠ò═á_╠À╠¬╠½╠ÿ╠Ø╠¬╠æ╠æ╠ï╠¥_╠Á╠▓╠Ç╠¥╠Å╠é═ÿ╠ò "growing tree".
No. You said "Isn't it counterproductive to be High Universal, possibly Moon Level?" I answered it with a "yes" it IS a counterproductive statement. It doesn't mean I CLAIMED fully agreed with it. Statement and claim has difference.
"How are you High Universal confirmed, but only 'possibly' moon level?"
Based on what I said previously. 5-C is based on blast resistance. High Universal is based on breaking. Creative mode alone could break them with breaking the "hardness" alone though. Basically the blast resistence does contradict the hardness in IRL logic. "At least 5-C, possibly High 3-A" sounds wrong because it's based on blast resistance creative mode, this is why I said "5-C is gamemechanic + creative mode".
"I even gave you the links to report the difference. You can't treat them as one and the same."
I already knew that you don't need to state the obvious. You claimed "I treated them as one" in reality I don't, at this point are you calling me a dumb?
"You used AntVenom as a source video for your argument, so apparently you think of him as a reliable resource."
What's wrong about that? If you have youtube-phobia just like people in the death battle community keep telling everyone "debunk" and "it's so wrong" then don't expect anything from me. No one in vsbattle, except @Saikou, are reliable on collecting information about indication of AP destruction in survival Minecraft in actual battle.
"Well here's another video from Antvenom explaining what blast resistance is. Your posted video is hardness value, not blast resistance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C4TmqKChG0"
Same to you back to you. "Your posted video is blast value, not hardness.". I don't necessarily need it. I already watched the video for long time, it's all based on fireball explosion in creative mode.
"destroying a block of obsidian would only be rated at least Small Building Level because even early game steve could break obsidian"
Uh oh, first tell that to @Saikou, I wouldn't argue anything about it, this isn't "retreat" I'm not expertises on Minecraft AP yet so save your argument and make CRT.
"Now you need to go and create a massive revision thread to downgrade the minecraft verse to Large Building Level at best (minus the cosmic characters) because you try to use game mechanics (hardness) to debunk "game mechanics" (blast resistance)."
You claimed I used gamemechanics, no your wrong, you're the one who uses gamemechanics (blast resistence) and you're telling me "breaking in survival mode" (hardness) is gamemechanics? That's utter absurd. Correction, I'm debunking the blast resistance because the "blast resistance to all unbreakable blocks" are contradictory, it'd be easier to believe it were gamemechanics, at the same time using creative mode made "destroying bedrock/commandblock via explosion" argument more fallacious.
"If you really believe what you are saying, make a thread to update the game mechanics page, because what you're trying to claim about blast resistance doesn't fit this wiki's description of game mechanics at all."
This your telling me implies "Nani?! blast resistance are gamemechanics? No, @David you're completely wrong, blast resistance ARE not gamemechanics so you've to do CRT on this wiki's gamemechanics page." basically you're bothering me and slapping the page on me because you disagree. I'm going to tell you this clearly, 1. "creative mode explosion destroys the unbreakable block (supposed to be UNBREAKABLE) via explosion, the explosion literally disintegrates the block through finite blast resistance.", 2. "breaking interaction is physical damage and explosion is physical damage, no difference.", 3. "blast resistance should never contradict the hardness from the game to IRL logic.", 4. "unbreakable blocks is canonical.", 5. "claiming unbreakable blocks were breakable by explosion is fallacious.", 6. "blast resistance to all unbreakable blocks contradicts the physical damage logic since destroying unbreakable blocks through blast resistance would ignore the physical damage through breaking interaction which classified destroying the unbreakable blocks via explosion/blast resistance as gamemechanics in game logic because it contradicts IRL logic.".
And Obsidian has nothing with my logic, Obsidian is in survival mode.
"But I'm not talking about Minecraft Story mode... that's a completely different game, and since apparently it's noncanon to the original minecraft game, you definitely shouldn't be bringing it up here. I don't even play that game, so I wouldn't even try to argue for Story Mode."
Dude are you serious? I could tell you're definitely serious. The current profile's stats for bedrock/commandblock dura are based on STORY MODE. Why I won't bringing it up here? You're definitely arguing me over bedrock/commandblock should be destructible while I heavily disagree with your logic, and debunk 5-C dura. Also you're using me to your logics as are nerfed Minecraft.
"In the actual minecraft game, in creative mode, bedrock and end portal frames can be placed and destroyed willingly."
So? It's just High 3-A AP no 5-C nerfed AP, end portal frames were intended to be indestructible because it's the only way to travel into End dimension so frames are idestructible blocks in canon, the frame being made of endstone is just aesthetic, and destroying End Portal frames in survival would breaks the lore.
"I don't know why you guys keep bringing up 'it can't be done in survival mode' to disprove a key for 'creative mode'."
And that's it. The reason why I said previously "I chatted @Saik about creative mode... I guess I'd retreat arguing over creative mode. *shrug* ┬»\(´¥ƒ•´¥ƒSaikou The Lewd King said:
/¯"."If you agree that they are entirely different and separate coding, why are you acting like they are intertwined? They are not intertwined coding at all."
Because they're interwined physical damage at IRL logic. If we talk about coding further more it'd be sees it as gamemechanics.
"The point is that it is contradicted because not blast resistance, but HARDNESS Value is the one with game mechanics."
Your logic would contradict breaking in survival mode. It would make breaking in survival mode is gamemechanics by your logic. Hardness is based on "breaking" in Minecraft. You can't simply claim they're gamemechanics because it contradicts your blast resistance. While I debunked that logic because it's contradictory. "Also rip obsidian dura because obsidian was literally calced to be town level because of blast resistance. No explosion in survival mode alone can generate town level force, but guess what? This was allowed for obsidian." Do you agree accumulation damage are canon in Minecraft? Answer it just "yes" or "no" and nothing more. Because I wouldn't yet reveal my cards exposed, because I predicted you'll say "I disagree" and "It doesn't make sense at all" or do "debunk" for whatever reasons. Why I'm telling you this before I give my opinion about your argument? because it has to do or don't with it. Especially I haven't heard @Saikou agree with "base Steve could destroy obsidian, and Steve would generate 7-C force level" your logic because that'd remind me the vsbattle standard/rules.
"That response doesn't tell me anything, especially when you still failed to tell me what the 'growing tree' is to begin with."
Is my responsed "I don't know if they're still relevant these days if that tricks were still working on survival mode, so I've no clue. I've watched Minecraft videos for so long I could remember what those players did to breakthrough bedrocks upward in the Nether dimension." isn't enough?! Why don't you go search in youtube "how to break the bedrock in survival mode" and watch the videos. After watching the videos and if you aren't convinced with my "joke" referenced, and I will definitely give up telling you what the d_╠┤╠í╠ú╠á╠»╠ñ╠╣╠»╠ú╠ä╠ä╠à═è╠ä╠ô╠ê╠ü╠ò╠ò╠ò═á_╠À╠¬╠½╠ÿ╠Ø╠¬╠æ╠æ╠ï╠¥_╠Á╠▓╠Ç╠¥╠Å╠é═ÿ╠ò "growing tree".
- 1,160
- 186
- Thread starter
- #43
Dude, you literally wrote:Davidliteral said:
That was your stated argument. How are you going to act like you don't agree with what you're telling me? That means you don't agree with yourself.Davidliteral said:I chatted @Saik about creative mode... I guess I'd retreat arguing over creative mode. *shrug* ┬»\(´¥ƒ•´¥ƒ
@DeathstroketheHedgehog Bedrock's dura would be High 3-A, possibly 5-C.
Based on what I said previously. 5-C is based on blast resistance. High Universal is based on breaking. Creative mode alone could break them with breaking the "hardness" alone though. Basically the blast resistence does contradict the hardness in IRL logic. "At least 5-C, possibly High 3-A" sounds wrong because it's based on blast resistance creative mode, this is why I said "5-C is gamemechanic + creative mode".
What? So you think hardness value is not game mechanics, despite having values of -1, but blast resistance is game mechanics when it doesn't fit the bill for game mechanics at all? What kind of logic is that? Hardness value fits the definition of game mechanics, not blast resistance.
I already knew that you don't need to state the obvious. You claimed "I treated them as one" in reality I don't, at this point are you calling me a dumb?
First off, don't twist my words in a knot to claim that I'm insulting you. Don't. I hate it when people assume that I am attacking them for zero reason.
Second, I said you treated them as one, meaning that despite being aware that they are two different things, your responses acted like they were intertwined.
And that's it. The reason why I said previously "I chatted @Saik about creative mode... I guess I'd retreat arguing over creative mode. *shrug* ┬»\(´¥ƒ•´¥ƒ
/¯".What you failed to realize by quoting Saikou is that Saikou has directed that messsage to me, and I've already responded to that:
The point of 'creative mode' is to create, I don't see how a sandbox game isn't made for creative mode. And If I remember correctly, survival mode wasn't even implemented until later early updates. Also to note, I don't see how the Mobestiary is the bible to what is canon and what isn't when the book's purpose is only to describe mobs, according to the summaries of the book I've seen online.
So there was no reason to bring that quote back up.
Because they're interwined physical damage at IRL logic. If we talk about coding further more it'd be sees it as gamemechanics.
I'm fine with hardness value being game mechanics, thank you very much.
Your logic would contradict breaking in survival mode. It would make breaking in survival mode is gamemechanics by your logic. Hardness is based on "breaking" in Minecraft. You can't simply claim they're gamemechanics because it contradicts your blast resistance. While I debunked that logic because it's contradictory.
And I've already debunked this paragraph several times in this comment alone, so this is redundant.
Do you agree accumulation damage are cano in Minecraft? Answer it just "yes" or "no" and nothing more. Because I wouldn't yet reveal my cards exposed, because I predicted you'll say "I disagree" and "It doesn't make sense at all" or do "debunk" for whatever reasons. Why I'm telling you this before I give my opinion about your argument? because it has to do or don't with it. Especially I haven't heard @Saikou agree with "base Steve could destroy obsidian, and Steve would generate 7-C force level" your logic because that'd remind me the vsbattle standard/rules.
I don't care about your cards or whatever you have at all. Since you said accumulation damage, I'm about to debunk your entire argument by simple copy and paste from a link, which, quoting you, "basically you're bothering me and slapping the page on me because you disagree."
Examples include bullets doing minor damage to someone in gameplay in which they are more or less shown to be bullet proof. You once more can't chip away at durability like this in real life (if you can shrug off a bullet once, you can continue to do so without the threat of a continuous number of them hitting you over an inconsistent interval in arbitrary locations).
Game mechanics are considered non-cano, and using them in an argument is considered fallacious.
Is my responsed "I don't know if they're still relevant these days if that tricks were still working on survival mode, so I've no clue. I've watched Minecraft videos for so long I could remember what those players did to breakthrough bedrocks upward in the Nether dimension." isn't enough?! Why don't you go search in youtube "how to break the bedrock in survival mode" and watch the videos. After watching the videos and if you aren't convinced with my "joke" referenced, and I will definitely give up telling you what the d_╠┤╠í╠ú╠á╠»╠ñ╠╣╠»╠ú╠ä╠ä╠à═è╠ä╠ô╠ê╠ü╠ò╠ò╠ò═á_╠À╠¬╠½╠ÿ╠Ø╠¬╠æ╠æ╠ï╠¥_╠Á╠▓╠Ç╠¥╠Å╠é═ÿ╠ò "growing tree".
So you're seriously telling me to go on a manhunt because you think it's too hard to explain what you say, despite you typing this entire essay before you got to this paragraph? I'm not even going to waste my time entertaining you.
How about this? This debate is taking FAR TOO LONG to respond to because it's getting so long, so if it's IRRELEVANT to the debate, DON'T bring it up again. You're wasting my time.
- 1,160
- 186
- Thread starter
- #44
bump
- 1,160
- 186
- Thread starter
- #45
bump
- 1,160
- 186
- Thread starter
- #46
bump
- 1,160
- 186
- Thread starter
- #47
buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMP
- 1,160
- 186
- Thread starter
- #48
I'm probably going to edit the title into something clickbaity in order to get attention
- 1,160
- 186
- Thread starter
- #50
I was asking about why not have a key for creative mode steve, which would put him to At Least Moon Level, and the thread turned into whether or not creative mode is canon or noncanon to this sandbox game, because my opponents claim that Creative Mode is 'game mechanics' when it doesn't fit vsbattle's wiki for game mechanics, nor does it go against the Cano page.
What also confuses me is how it's stated that Minecraft Story Mode isn't canon either according to this wiki, yet they still have profiles, making me wonder why this debate went on so long to begin with.
What also confuses me is how it's stated that Minecraft Story Mode isn't canon either according to this wiki, yet they still have profiles, making me wonder why this debate went on so long to begin with.
- 1,160
- 186
- Thread starter
- #52
That I can agree with.
But then there's still the canon noncanon problem with creative mode.
But then there's still the canon noncanon problem with creative mode.
- 336
- 34
(BeforeThoughts: I don't arranged my response because I want to. But it has nothing to do with my "lining them up" a scheme to "make you in defense position" this will only result a misunderstandings. I will response you on separate quotes were separate responses.) "What you failed to realize by quoting Saikou is that Saikou has directed that messsage to me, and I've already responded to that: (insert quote) So there was no reason to bring that quote back up."
No, you're the one who failed to realized, you're treating my opinion as a mistake, it's not even directed at you, it was me, just like I said before I chatted @Saikou before in Special:Chat and then copy-pasted. It just meant @Saikou's responsed to me were similar to you. So there was also no reason attempting to correct me while I'm not even wrong.
"Quote my entire response, don't nitpick and crop the sentences to change what my argument sounded like."
You think I don't READ your entire response? Assuming you assumed me I ignored your comment while I don't (I've encountered this problems many times in this wiki, it's like people needs "permission" or "ask" to remind them their comment wasn't ignored. Seriously most people these days knows nothing about the obvious).
You aren't me to make a guess I'm being "nitpicking". First of all I do whatever I want and you... you don't command me. My opinion for you, you don't need to reply every single tiresome arranged comments and it's unnecessarily replying back at them if it's unnecessary since I don't have a response (and I cropped it) I don't have idea to reply you back or it's even not necessary to add them or/and has something to do with my claims/statements/arguments or what I believe.
You want me to reply every single thing about your arguments when I don't have "reply", no comment, and no idea to response and reply you back like this: "...", "...!", "...?", and "... ... ..." just like Red in Gen 1 pokemon?! That's just insufferable decision.
I'm about to debunk your entire argument by simple copy and paste from a link, which, quoting you, "basically you're bothering me and slapping the page on me because you disagree."
Examples include bullets doing minor damage to someone in gameplay in which they are more or less shown to be bullet proof. You once more can't chip away at durability like this in real life (if you can shrug off a bullet once, you can continue to do so without the threat of a continuous number of them hitting you over an inconsistent interval in arbitrary locations).
Game mechanics are considered non-cano, and using them in an argument is considered fallacious.
Again i'll repeat this, "are you calling me dumb?" you think I don't knew it?! You think despite I knew it I'd tossed an argument like this randomly? YOU'RE LITERALLY TRASHING MY ARGUMENT and your so called debunked my arguments are filled with sarcasm and that copypasta of yours is what your doing to "you're bothering me and slapping the page on me".
This page: Examples include bullets doing minor damage to someone in gameplay in which they are more or less shown to be bullet proof. You once more can't chip away at durability like this in real life (if you can shrug off a bullet once, you can continue to do so without the threat of a continuous number of them hitting you over an inconsistent interval in arbitrary locations). is what you slapping on my face (can pls trim it down with only link without quote) and it's bothering me to be honest, I've readed that page a lot of times.
You think a simple copypasta would work? I HAVEN'T EVEN EXPLAIN YET AND HERE YOU ARE ARGUING MY QUESTION BY DEBUNKING A QUESTION YOU'VE HAVEN'T ANSWERED A QUESTION YET, it's just absurd, you're absurd because you think of it as gamemechanics simple as that right? Tsk y═ê╠×═ø╠äo╠û╠▒═å╠ê╠üu╠ÿ╠®╠║═Ü╠á═è╠Å═ÿ═ÿ═á ═û╠¬╠ë╠òk╠│╠Å┼å═ö╠Ñ╠ù═î╠É╠Ä╠é┼æ╠╣w╠»═£═á═í ╠ó╠»╠»╠½╠î╠ë═Ø═íw═û╠╗═ê═É═æ╠äß©º═Ö╠®╠ƒ╠à═å═ó═áa═û╠╝╠ô═ø═è═£t╠│╠░╠Ø╠Ç═ÿ═í!╠ñ╠Ø╠Ñ═î╠¥╠ç?╠û╠ü Whatever, I'm not going to explain the damage accumulation any further you aren't even interested at this point YOU DON'T EVEN CARE then I WON'T EVEN CARE! So don't bring this up again.
"So you're seriously telling me to go on a manhunt because you think it's too hard to explain what you say"
The response was supposed to be rather than asking me about it why not you do your own research? Don't make me look like to me it's hard to explain something that's so simple an easy task to do and here you're complaining about my post has gone too long like I didn't waste my time yet you making me like I'm wasting your time?! What kind of thinking do you have?
"I'm not even going to waste my time entertaining you."
This response are making look like I'm the one here ARE VERY ENTERTAINED on wasting your time. Again don't make me look like I'm not wasting my time here while you're trashing all my arguments as misinterpretation just because you disagree.
^ Above here is more negative responses
v Down here is more positive responses
".... dude, y... you... you're implying that they are unbreakable due to game mechanics..."
This is misinterpretation you have. There's is large difference between interpreting unbreakableblocks were game mechanics due to two different internal code and unbreakableblocks were really unbreakableblocks due to being added to the game intentionally.
You believe hardness is gamemechanics due to internal code the hardness were inconsistent to blast resistance, it'd be unbreakableblocks become breakable is fallacious idea, this is just game logic. I already knew this idea before you even start claiming "hardness is gamemechanics so it's non-canon and unbreakable blocks were supposed to be breakable".
"Dude, cut it out with your assumptions that I am attacking you!"
Your debunks/arguments were attacking my statements/claims. Just because you disagree, you suddenly stated my claims were wrong while you didn't explained "it's gamemechanics because hardness value is -1" before you explained more about it in your later arguments. You think I wouldn't think of that as "attacking"? Blame your mistake. (Don't. Think. I don't have mistake. We both does have mistake.)
"That was your stated argument. How are you going to act like you don't agree with what you're telling me? That means you don't agree with yourself."
It's NOT that I don't agree with myself. You suspected those my responses as whole as one connected. Separate quotes were separate responses. You're mixing my responses were messed up. What I meant from that statement I don't fully agree with my "yes" claims from this quote "You said "Isn't it counterproductive to be High Universal, possibly Moon Level?" I answered it with a "yes" it IS a counterproductive statement" this is claim isn't my "High Universal, possibly Moon Level" statement. It seems the "it" in this quote "It doesn't mean I CLAIMED fully agreed with it" is now a messed up grammar. This would probably be a my mistake.
"What? So you think hardness value is not game mechanics, despite having values of -1, but blast resistance is game mechanics when it doesn't fit the bill for game mechanics at all? What kind of logic is that?"
You were talking all blast resistance in blocks as a whole aren't gamemechanics (this includes survival mode) with this logic which makes it fit for gamemechanics. This is just game logics which confuses IRL logic.
To let you know I don't know you believed it was about "-1" which you hadn't explain your "-1" reason as my response ^ above your "Dude, cut it out with your assumptions that I am attacking you!" quote, and as you can see my response ^ above your ".... dude, y... you... you're implying that they are unbreakable due to game mechanics..." quote I didn't said "-1 is fallacious idea", to make you clear those reponses were separate responses.
Do you know why I said unbreakableblocks blast resistance is gamemechanics? They're gamemechanics because they don't fit the bill for "physical damage" due to sense of game logic which makes people sees creative mode a gamemechanic (most people in youtube from my experience, I could understand why these people won't bring that much or defending about creative steve versus insert-character-here).
From my final analysis about it, at this point you should ignore my "blast resistance is gamemechanics" argument, because it's clear that both of us were correct we just believe differently. I previously stated "Unbreakable Blocks is High Universal, possibly Moon Level" therefore 5-C is game logic which I think it's "possibly" being inconclusive due to lack of viable IRL logic power-scaling. Also I could agree with scaling to "At least 5-C, possibly High 3-A" because of being viable to game logic and due to assumptions about Story Mode is treated to be comparable to mechanics in Vanilla as creative mode therefore I could agree with it. (Which is why I retreated to arguing @Saikou over Creative mode.)
"-snip-"
Oh man, I will skip your other arguments/reponses (it isn't tl;dr) cuz I've no idea yet to reply you back or if it's even necessary or I think it's necessary to reply back if it'd have a connection to this new responses of mine though. Assuming those reponses of yours are "correcting" brought up to here.
"But then there's still the canon noncanon problem with creative mode."
As @Saikou stated many times, it just means @Saikou would only allow Creative mode as a "canon" to this wiki if there's such story narrative behind the certain mode(s). It's just that the existence of creative mode and hardcore mode contradicts the End Poem, and that's it.
No, you're the one who failed to realized, you're treating my opinion as a mistake, it's not even directed at you, it was me, just like I said before I chatted @Saikou before in Special:Chat and then copy-pasted. It just meant @Saikou's responsed to me were similar to you. So there was also no reason attempting to correct me while I'm not even wrong.
"Quote my entire response, don't nitpick and crop the sentences to change what my argument sounded like."
You think I don't READ your entire response? Assuming you assumed me I ignored your comment while I don't (I've encountered this problems many times in this wiki, it's like people needs "permission" or "ask" to remind them their comment wasn't ignored. Seriously most people these days knows nothing about the obvious).
You aren't me to make a guess I'm being "nitpicking". First of all I do whatever I want and you... you don't command me. My opinion for you, you don't need to reply every single tiresome arranged comments and it's unnecessarily replying back at them if it's unnecessary since I don't have a response (and I cropped it) I don't have idea to reply you back or it's even not necessary to add them or/and has something to do with my claims/statements/arguments or what I believe.
You want me to reply every single thing about your arguments when I don't have "reply", no comment, and no idea to response and reply you back like this: "...", "...!", "...?", and "... ... ..." just like Red in Gen 1 pokemon?! That's just insufferable decision.
I'm about to debunk your entire argument by simple copy and paste from a link, which, quoting you, "basically you're bothering me and slapping the page on me because you disagree."
Examples include bullets doing minor damage to someone in gameplay in which they are more or less shown to be bullet proof. You once more can't chip away at durability like this in real life (if you can shrug off a bullet once, you can continue to do so without the threat of a continuous number of them hitting you over an inconsistent interval in arbitrary locations).
Game mechanics are considered non-cano, and using them in an argument is considered fallacious.
Again i'll repeat this, "are you calling me dumb?" you think I don't knew it?! You think despite I knew it I'd tossed an argument like this randomly? YOU'RE LITERALLY TRASHING MY ARGUMENT and your so called debunked my arguments are filled with sarcasm and that copypasta of yours is what your doing to "you're bothering me and slapping the page on me".
This page: Examples include bullets doing minor damage to someone in gameplay in which they are more or less shown to be bullet proof. You once more can't chip away at durability like this in real life (if you can shrug off a bullet once, you can continue to do so without the threat of a continuous number of them hitting you over an inconsistent interval in arbitrary locations). is what you slapping on my face (can pls trim it down with only link without quote) and it's bothering me to be honest, I've readed that page a lot of times.
You think a simple copypasta would work? I HAVEN'T EVEN EXPLAIN YET AND HERE YOU ARE ARGUING MY QUESTION BY DEBUNKING A QUESTION YOU'VE HAVEN'T ANSWERED A QUESTION YET, it's just absurd, you're absurd because you think of it as gamemechanics simple as that right? Tsk y═ê╠×═ø╠äo╠û╠▒═å╠ê╠üu╠ÿ╠®╠║═Ü╠á═è╠Å═ÿ═ÿ═á ═û╠¬╠ë╠òk╠│╠Å┼å═ö╠Ñ╠ù═î╠É╠Ä╠é┼æ╠╣w╠»═£═á═í ╠ó╠»╠»╠½╠î╠ë═Ø═íw═û╠╗═ê═É═æ╠äß©º═Ö╠®╠ƒ╠à═å═ó═áa═û╠╝╠ô═ø═è═£t╠│╠░╠Ø╠Ç═ÿ═í!╠ñ╠Ø╠Ñ═î╠¥╠ç?╠û╠ü Whatever, I'm not going to explain the damage accumulation any further you aren't even interested at this point YOU DON'T EVEN CARE then I WON'T EVEN CARE! So don't bring this up again.
"So you're seriously telling me to go on a manhunt because you think it's too hard to explain what you say"
The response was supposed to be rather than asking me about it why not you do your own research? Don't make me look like to me it's hard to explain something that's so simple an easy task to do and here you're complaining about my post has gone too long like I didn't waste my time yet you making me like I'm wasting your time?! What kind of thinking do you have?
"I'm not even going to waste my time entertaining you."
This response are making look like I'm the one here ARE VERY ENTERTAINED on wasting your time. Again don't make me look like I'm not wasting my time here while you're trashing all my arguments as misinterpretation just because you disagree.
^ Above here is more negative responses
v Down here is more positive responses
".... dude, y... you... you're implying that they are unbreakable due to game mechanics..."
This is misinterpretation you have. There's is large difference between interpreting unbreakableblocks were game mechanics due to two different internal code and unbreakableblocks were really unbreakableblocks due to being added to the game intentionally.
You believe hardness is gamemechanics due to internal code the hardness were inconsistent to blast resistance, it'd be unbreakableblocks become breakable is fallacious idea, this is just game logic. I already knew this idea before you even start claiming "hardness is gamemechanics so it's non-canon and unbreakable blocks were supposed to be breakable".
"Dude, cut it out with your assumptions that I am attacking you!"
Your debunks/arguments were attacking my statements/claims. Just because you disagree, you suddenly stated my claims were wrong while you didn't explained "it's gamemechanics because hardness value is -1" before you explained more about it in your later arguments. You think I wouldn't think of that as "attacking"? Blame your mistake. (Don't. Think. I don't have mistake. We both does have mistake.)
"That was your stated argument. How are you going to act like you don't agree with what you're telling me? That means you don't agree with yourself."
It's NOT that I don't agree with myself. You suspected those my responses as whole as one connected. Separate quotes were separate responses. You're mixing my responses were messed up. What I meant from that statement I don't fully agree with my "yes" claims from this quote "You said "Isn't it counterproductive to be High Universal, possibly Moon Level?" I answered it with a "yes" it IS a counterproductive statement" this is claim isn't my "High Universal, possibly Moon Level" statement. It seems the "it" in this quote "It doesn't mean I CLAIMED fully agreed with it" is now a messed up grammar. This would probably be a my mistake.
"What? So you think hardness value is not game mechanics, despite having values of -1, but blast resistance is game mechanics when it doesn't fit the bill for game mechanics at all? What kind of logic is that?"
You were talking all blast resistance in blocks as a whole aren't gamemechanics (this includes survival mode) with this logic which makes it fit for gamemechanics. This is just game logics which confuses IRL logic.
To let you know I don't know you believed it was about "-1" which you hadn't explain your "-1" reason as my response ^ above your "Dude, cut it out with your assumptions that I am attacking you!" quote, and as you can see my response ^ above your ".... dude, y... you... you're implying that they are unbreakable due to game mechanics..." quote I didn't said "-1 is fallacious idea", to make you clear those reponses were separate responses.
Do you know why I said unbreakableblocks blast resistance is gamemechanics? They're gamemechanics because they don't fit the bill for "physical damage" due to sense of game logic which makes people sees creative mode a gamemechanic (most people in youtube from my experience, I could understand why these people won't bring that much or defending about creative steve versus insert-character-here).
From my final analysis about it, at this point you should ignore my "blast resistance is gamemechanics" argument, because it's clear that both of us were correct we just believe differently. I previously stated "Unbreakable Blocks is High Universal, possibly Moon Level" therefore 5-C is game logic which I think it's "possibly" being inconclusive due to lack of viable IRL logic power-scaling. Also I could agree with scaling to "At least 5-C, possibly High 3-A" because of being viable to game logic and due to assumptions about Story Mode is treated to be comparable to mechanics in Vanilla as creative mode therefore I could agree with it. (Which is why I retreated to arguing @Saikou over Creative mode.)
"-snip-"
Oh man, I will skip your other arguments/reponses (it isn't tl;dr) cuz I've no idea yet to reply you back or if it's even necessary or I think it's necessary to reply back if it'd have a connection to this new responses of mine though. Assuming those reponses of yours are "correcting" brought up to here.
"But then there's still the canon noncanon problem with creative mode."
As @Saikou stated many times, it just means @Saikou would only allow Creative mode as a "canon" to this wiki if there's such story narrative behind the certain mode(s). It's just that the existence of creative mode and hardcore mode contradicts the End Poem, and that's it.
- 1,160
- 186
- Thread starter
- #54
I don't know if you rushed this, if English isn't your first language, or if you put this in a translator... but what I do know is that I have no idea what you just said.Davidliteral said:
"What you failed to realize by quoting Saikou is that Saikou has directed that messsage to me, and I've already responded to that: (insert quote) So there was no reason to bring that quote back up."
No, you're the one who failed to realized, you're treating my opinion as a mistake, it's not even directed at you, it was me, just like I said before I chatted @Saikou before in Special:Chat and then copy-pasted. It just meant @Saikou's responsed to me were similar to you. So there was also no reason attempting to correct me while I'm not even wrong.
What does this have to do with your opinion, at all? Your response to my argument was nothing but a quote from Saikou. Your opinion was never there.
No one tried to correct you for being wrong (especially because you never answered, you let Saikou answered for you), I said that Saikou already told me this, word for word, and I've already responded to that.
By the way, just letting you know, you've dodged the point of this argument here.
"Quote my entire response, don't nitpick and crop the sentences to change what my argument sounded like."
You think I don't READ your entire response? Assuming you assumed me I ignored your comment while I don't (I've encountered this problems many times in this wiki, it's like people needs "permission" or "ask" to remind them their comment wasn't ignored. Seriously most people these days knows nothing about the obvious).
You aren't me to make a guess I'm being "nitpicking". First of all I do whatever I want and you... you don't command me. My opinion for you, you don't need to reply every single tiresome arranged comments and it's unnecessarily replying back at them if it's unnecessary since I don't have a response (and I cropped it) I don't have idea to reply you back or it's even not necessary to add them or/and has something to do with my claims/statements/arguments or what I believe.
You want me to reply every single thing about your arguments when I don't have "reply", no comment, and no idea to response and reply you back like this: "...", "...!", "...?", and "... ... ..." just like Red in Gen 1 pokemon?! That's just insufferable decision.
You ironically do it again, and then you misinterpret my argument agai. I don't tell you to quote my whole response because I want to command you. I tell you to quote my whole response because you completely miss the point and then argue about something else which I never meant. Not that you don't read my argument, but that you only pay attention to one little thing. The fact that you've encountered this problem a lot actually supports my reasoning. If all you have to reply to my arguments are "...", "...!", "...?", and "... ... ...", then what you're saying is that you have no counterargument. What you ca say is "fair enough", "I understand now", "I guess that makes sense", "that clears up things", etc.
I'm about to debunk your entire argument by simple copy and paste from a link, which, quoting you, "basically you're bothering me and slapping the page on me because you disagree."
Examples include bullets doing minor damage to someone in gameplay in which they are more or less shown to be bullet proof. You once more can't chip away at durability like this in real life (if you can shrug off a bullet once, you can continue to do so without the threat of a continuous number of them hitting you over an inconsistent interval in arbitrary locations).
Game mechanics are considered non-cano, and using them in an argument is considered fallacious.
Again i'll repeat this, "are you calling me dumb?" you think I don't knew it?! You think despite I knew it I'd tossed an argument like this randomly? YOU'RE LITERALLY TRASHING MY ARGUMENT and your so called debunked my arguments are filled with sarcasm and that copypasta of yours is what your doing to "you're bothering me and slapping the page on me".
This page: Examples include bullets doing minor damage to someone in gameplay in which they are more or less shown to be bullet proof. You once more can't chip away at durability like this in real life (if you can shrug off a bullet once, you can continue to do so without the threat of a continuous number of them hitting you over an inconsistent interval in arbitrary locations). is what you slapping on my face (can pls trim it down with only link without quote) and it's bothering me to be honest, I've readed that page a lot of times.
You think a simple copypasta would work? I HAVEN'T EVEN EXPLAIN YET AND HERE YOU ARE ARGUING MY QUESTION BY DEBUNKING A QUESTION YOU'VE HAVEN'T ANSWERED A QUESTION YET, it's just absurd, you're absurd because you think of it as gamemechanics simple as that right? Tsk y═ê╠×═ø╠äo╠û╠▒═å╠ê╠üu╠ÿ╠®╠║═Ü╠á═è╠Å═ÿ═ÿ═á ═û╠¬╠ë╠òk╠│╠Å┼å═ö╠Ñ╠ù═î╠É╠Ä╠é┼æ╠╣w╠»═£═á═í ╠ó╠»╠»╠½╠î╠ë═Ø═íw═û╠╗═ê═É═æ╠äß©º═Ö╠®╠ƒ╠à═å═ó═áa═û╠╝╠ô═ø═è═£t╠│╠░╠Ø╠Ç═ÿ═í!╠ñ╠Ø╠Ñ═î╠¥╠ç?╠û╠ü Whatever, I'm not going to explain the damage accumulation any further you aren't even interested at this point YOU DON'T EVEN CARE then I WON'T EVEN CARE! So don't bring this up again.
Again, I'll repeat this. "First off, don't twist my words in a knot to claim that I'm insulting you. Don't." I rarely (if ever) used sarcasm in this thread, don't say I have when we just had an irrelevant argument about your sarcastic joke.
You may have reread it a lot of times, but the reason I keep posting it is that you continue to act like you've never read it and continue to claim that blast resistance is game mechanics despite the fact that hardness fits the exact definition. I even bolded the important points.
Don't try to call me absurd here. I've already told you I'm not insulting you, don't try to insult me. I think of it as game mechanics and I have proven it' with my arguments rather than just say "it's game mechanics, period." You don't need to explain damage "accumulation" to me in the first place. I know what accumulation means, and accumulation doesn't work for blast resistace, only hardness from mining. That's why I keep quoting the same link. "doing minor damage to someone in gameplay in which they are more or less shown to be bullet proof." Obsidian can't be destroyed with TNT, but if you mine obsidian for a long time, you ca destroy it. Hardness value fits the description for game mechanics. End of story. Stop getting mad a me for posting the same links if you don't comprehend the reason that I do post it to begin with.
Oh, and about you telling me not to bring this up again? "I do whatever I want and you... you don't command me."
"So you're seriously telling me to go on a manhunt because you think it's too hard to explain what you say"
The response was supposed to be rather than asking me about it why not you do your own research? Don't make me look like to me it's hard to explain something that's so simple an easy task to do and here you're complaining about my post has gone too long like I didn't waste my time yet you making me like I'm wasting your time?! What kind of thinking do you have?
> So simple > Easy task
Yet we're still arguing about this. If this Growing Tree was 'So EaSy To FiNd', we wouldn't be still arguing about this, would we? Since apparently it isn't too hard to explain what you say, then why couldn't you have done it forever ago instead of continuing it?
"I'm not even going to waste my time entertaining you."
This response are making look like I'm the one here ARE VERY ENTERTAINED on wasting your time. Again don't make me look like I'm not wasting my time here while you're trashing all my arguments as misinterpretation just because you disagree.
If you didn't split my arguments in half, you would have realized that what you quoted about me goes with the previous quote above. Once again, you misinterpret what I say because you nitpick and split my arguments in half.
And no, don't call it 'trashing your arguments', call it debunking.
".... dude, y... you... you're implying that they are unbreakable due to game mechanics..."
This is misinterpretation you have. There's is large difference between interpreting unbreakableblocks were game mechanics due to two different internal code and unbreakableblocks were really unbreakableblocks due to being added to the game intentionally.
You believe hardness is gamemechanics due to internal code the hardness were inconsistent to blast resistance, it'd be unbreakableblocks become breakable is fallacious idea, this is just game logic. I already knew this idea before you even start claiming "hardness is gamemechanics so it's non-canon and unbreakable blocks were supposed to be breakable".
This is a misinterpretation you have. If the game intends for you to be in a certain border and you get hit by an invisible wall, it's game mechanics. If the game intends for you to take turns attacking the opponent, it's game mechanics. If the game intends for you not to break bedrock in survival because it's the boundary of the world, it's game mechanics. Hardness value is game mechanics.
What you're not comprehending is the fact that I'm saying bedrock has moon level durability. Moon level. Survival mode steve at his best is Town Level. I'm pretty sure Town Level Steve can't even make a dent through Moon Level bedrock, so for all intents and purposes bedrock is still unbreakable from that perspective.
"Dude, cut it out with your assumptions that I am attacking you!"
Your debunks/arguments were attacking my statements/claims. Just because you disagree, you suddenly stated my claims were wrong while you didn't explained "it's gamemechanics because hardness value is -1" before you explained more about it in your later arguments. You think I wouldn't think of that as "attacking"? Blame your mistake. (Don't. Think. I don't have mistake. We both does have mistake.)
So by debunking someone's arguments, you are attacking their arguments? I don't even know why you even say that as if I'm attacking you, I'm not. You are attacking me. Not my arguments, me personally. You not only called my arguments absurd, you called me absurd. In my response to saying "you apparently think AntVenom is reliable", you accused me of "youtube-phobia".
See unlike you, I don't attack you. It's the other way around. Don't get it twisted.
Now, back to the actual topic... I explained the -1 hardness in the same comment, so there's no reason to even continue to assume that I didn't explain it. Oh and btw... you still didn't refute that negative durabiltiy argument.
"That was your stated argument. How are you going to act like you don't agree with what you're telling me? That means you don't agree with yourself."
It's NOT that I don't agree with myself. You suspected those my responses as whole as one connected. Separate quotes were separate responses. You're mixing my responses were messed up. What I meant from that statement I don't fully agree with my "yes" claims from this quote "You said "Isn't it counterproductive to be High Universal, possibly Moon Level?" I answered it with a "yes" it IS a counterproductive statement" this is claim isn't my "High Universal, possibly Moon Level" statement. It seems the "it" in this quote "It doesn't mean I CLAIMED fully agreed with it" is now a messed up grammar. This would probably be a my mistake.
On the topic of grammar, I have no idea what you just said. I've reread it over five times, and I still don't know what you said.
"What? So you think hardness value is not game mechanics, despite having values of -1, but blast resistance is game mechanics when it doesn't fit the bill for game mechanics at all? What kind of logic is that?"
You were talking all blast resistance in blocks as a whole aren't gamemechanics (this includes survival mode) with this logic which makes it fit for gamemechanics. This is just game logics which confuses IRL logic.
Game Mechanics have nothing to do with logic. This proves you didn't understand the game mechanics page. Game mechanics are INTENTIONAL coding limitations. In Mortal Kombat, characters can only go left and right, and there's a boundary on the left side and the right side that they can't pass. That's Game Mechanics. That's intentionally limiting the game.
To let you know I don't know you believed it was about "-1" which you hadn't explain your "-1" reason as my response ^ above your "Dude, cut it out with your assumptions that I am attacking you!" quote, and as you can see my response ^ above your ".... dude, y... you... you're implying that they are unbreakable due to game mechanics..." quote I didn't said "-1 is fallacious idea", to make you clear those reponses were separate responses.
That is nothing but a runon sentence. I have no idea what you said.
Do you know why I said unbreakableblocks blast resistance is gamemechanics? They're gamemechanics because they don't fit the bill for "physical damage" due to sense of game logic which makes people sees creative mode a gamemechanic (most people in youtube from my experience, I could understand why these people won't bring that much or defending about creative steve versus insert-character-here).
You're appealing to common belief agai, and even then, that statement isn't true to begin with. Also, just because blast resistance doesn't follow irl logic doesn't mean it's a game mechanic. Minecraft is a fictional 'world made up of blocks, physics aren't meant to mimic reality in every little thing.
From my final analysis about it, at this point you should ignore my "blast resistance is gamemechanics" argument, because it's clear that both of us were correct we just believe differently. I previously stated "Unbreakable Blocks is High Universal, possibly Moon Level" therefore 5-C is game logic which I think it's "possibly" being inconclusive due to lack of viable IRL logic power-scaling. Also I could agree with scaling to "At least 5-C, possibly High 3-A" because of being viable to game logic and due to assumptions about Story Mode is treated to be comparable to mechanics in Vanilla as creative mode therefore I could agree with it. (Which is why I retreated to arguing @Saikou over Creative mode.)
Except that 'Game Mechanics' has been the bulk of the entire argument about canon or noncanon. Ignoring that means ignoring a majority of points made about the game.
-snip-"
Oh man, I will skip your other arguments/reponses (it isn't tl;dr) cuz I've no idea yet to reply you back or if it's even necessary or I think it's necessary to reply back if it'd have a connection to this new responses of mine though. Assuming those reponses of yours are "correcting" brought up to here.
I don't even know what the rest of these arguments were supposed to be because you kept jumping back and forth. If they are what I think they are, then those are arguments which I've called redundant, because you continue to use the same argument over and over.
"But then there's still the canon noncanon problem with creative mode."
As @Saikou stated many times, it just means @Saikou would only allow Creative mode as a "canon" to this wiki if there's such story narrative behind the certain mode(s). It's just that the existence of creative mode and hardcore mode contradicts the End Poem, and that's it.
Why was hardcore mode brought into this situation? You could literally die zero times in survival mode and therefore contradict the end poem the same way hardcore mode would. The poem only makes an assumptual guess about how one would reach the end the first time.
Also to quote from the Poem: "Sometimes the player dreamed it was other things, in other places. Sometimes these dreams were disturbing. Sometimes very beautiful indeed. Sometimes the player woke from one dream into another, then woke from that into a third."
It is implying different world files. Meaning it's not just one survival world that is talked about. It's multiple world files.
- 15,431
- 7,855
Bump.
- 336
- 34
"You could literally die zero times in survival mode" what? Could you explain more reason to this.
Also what'd you think about respawning in survival mode? It's gamemechanics or not?
Multiple world files? If it's not just one survival mode then what the other two dreams supposed to be?
The End Poem seems implying everytime the Player woke up from own dream into another dream... infinite loop since Player's reality were all just a dream.
I'm on my phone I couldn't reply you back longer than this.
Also what'd you think about respawning in survival mode? It's gamemechanics or not?
Multiple world files? If it's not just one survival mode then what the other two dreams supposed to be?
The End Poem seems implying everytime the Player woke up from own dream into another dream... infinite loop since Player's reality were all just a dream.
I'm on my phone I couldn't reply you back longer than this.
- 1,160
- 186
- Thread starter
- #57
There's nothing to explain. Say a pro minecraft player does a speed run and beats the enderdragon without dying in survival mode. The poem will still talk about a thousand deaths.Davidliteral said:
Also what'd you think about respawning in survival mode? It's gamemechanics or not?
I'm neutral on that. Whether or not one views it as game mechanics, I don't care. Either way, resurrection remains on Steve's profile due to the totem of undying, which is a much more reliable reason.
Multiple world files? If it's not just one survival mode then what the other two dreams supposed to be?
Those are other worlds. Maybe you want to make a world for a youtube hardcore mode let's play. Maybe you want to make a survival mode to test what you can do before applying those skills in your hardcore mode world. Maybe you get bored and decide to make a creative world to blow up some stuff for a while. Multiple world files.
The End Poem seems implying everytime the Player woke up from own dream into another dream... infinite loop since Player's reality were all just a dream.
Elaborate. And where does this come from?
- 336
- 34
I'm neutral on that. Whether or not one views it as game mechanics, I don't care. Either way, resurrection remains on Steve's profile due to the totem of undying, which is a much more reliable reason.
"(entire reply)" Ok that makes sense but...
That's not the only issue about "resurrection" in Minecraft in vsbattle, I tried posting Steve's profile should have Type 4 but nobody care, and afaik Type 9 of The Player (Minecraft) is based on Steve and the Player emerge as one character profile but when it comes to Steve/Survival mode key the Type 9 confuses people as they'd mistook of Type 9 is "respawning in different location" (or respawn mechanics in Minecraft) instead of "respawning in the same place" or... it's something about Type 4 and 9 misses the description "where they'd regenerate".
Those are other worlds. Maybe you want to make a world for a youtube hardcore mode let's play. Maybe you want to make a survival mode to test what you can do before applying those skills in your hardcore mode world. Maybe you get bored and decide to make a creative world to blow up some stuff for a while. Multiple world files.
Does creative mode associated?
Elaborate. And where does this come from?
The Player's reality were all just a dream, it doesn't mean it's lower manifestation. Which I disagree with this guy's statement. Since in the game the survival mode does respawn, respawning from death and to woke up back into bed, and at least dying thousands times. But then "the player woke from one dream into another" dream even the Player woke up from second dream into third the Player's reality are still a dream. This includes the long dream. Since both the short dream is a game and the long dream is reality were dream to the Player.
The entire End Poem explicitly stated the Player is both gaming and dreaming but the reality doesn't implied as lower manifestation if you read all of them carefully. End Poem messages have a lot of reference to our real life however this is just breaking the fourth wall and doesn't necessarily mean "real world" stated in the End Poem isn't narrative to Minecraft or the universe of Minecraft is lower manifestation since there's 2 paragraph next from "Once upon a time, there was a player." is Minecraft's "real world" and this includes the Player born from the woman in the long dream.
To me the Player's reality warping ability function seems similar to of a dream rather than being lower manifestation.
It also seems the game theorist's thoughts about the End Poem seems good enough
"(entire reply)" Ok that makes sense but...
That's not the only issue about "resurrection" in Minecraft in vsbattle, I tried posting Steve's profile should have Type 4 but nobody care, and afaik Type 9 of The Player (Minecraft) is based on Steve and the Player emerge as one character profile but when it comes to Steve/Survival mode key the Type 9 confuses people as they'd mistook of Type 9 is "respawning in different location" (or respawn mechanics in Minecraft) instead of "respawning in the same place" or... it's something about Type 4 and 9 misses the description "where they'd regenerate".
Those are other worlds. Maybe you want to make a world for a youtube hardcore mode let's play. Maybe you want to make a survival mode to test what you can do before applying those skills in your hardcore mode world. Maybe you get bored and decide to make a creative world to blow up some stuff for a while. Multiple world files.
Does creative mode associated?
Elaborate. And where does this come from?
The Player's reality were all just a dream, it doesn't mean it's lower manifestation. Which I disagree with this guy's statement. Since in the game the survival mode does respawn, respawning from death and to woke up back into bed, and at least dying thousands times. But then "the player woke from one dream into another" dream even the Player woke up from second dream into third the Player's reality are still a dream. This includes the long dream. Since both the short dream is a game and the long dream is reality were dream to the Player.
The entire End Poem explicitly stated the Player is both gaming and dreaming but the reality doesn't implied as lower manifestation if you read all of them carefully. End Poem messages have a lot of reference to our real life however this is just breaking the fourth wall and doesn't necessarily mean "real world" stated in the End Poem isn't narrative to Minecraft or the universe of Minecraft is lower manifestation since there's 2 paragraph next from "Once upon a time, there was a player." is Minecraft's "real world" and this includes the Player born from the woman in the long dream.
To me the Player's reality warping ability function seems similar to of a dream rather than being lower manifestation.
It also seems the game theorist's thoughts about the End Poem seems good enough
- 26,116
- 3,649
I did clear minecraft without dying first time around... It's not that hard to do as long as you are cautious.
- 336
- 34
That I can agree.
Or maybe both because others died and others don't, so I'm neutral about it.
Or maybe both because others died and others don't, so I'm neutral about it.
