Minecraft Top Tiers Speed Upgrades

[FinePoint]

I concur, and am tired of repeating myself. I'm just going to wait for more people.

 

[Abstractions]

Other than the Ender Dragon's massive size making an easier target to hit? The Ender Dragon isn't over there teleporting around like the Enderman if that's what you're wanting to see here.

You show to us a video of an Enderman being saturated with arrows over multiple spaces and managing to avoid being struck should it be feasibly possible to strike the Ender Dragon they would need to not be at these speeds.

And that's the exact thing, the Enderman's only method of dodging is teleporting via thought, something it wouldn't need combat speed to demonstrate. My point is that you cannot scale it to anything else.

It's not like the game programs her to have a dodge mechanic for this, and if we're being real, such a height to dodge wouldn't even need human level reaction speeds if we're being real here. Even with the depiction of mobs fighting each other alone, they do not dodge attacks. By your logic they can't even scale to themselves. Because you want to push for mobs to dodge so much you are forgetting that the combat limitations are the textbook definition of game mechanics.

You cannot use an absence of another game mechanic to further justify your contradictory scaling.

You are willing to justify the selective gameplay mechanic of Endermen dodging arrows by calling out gameplay limitations as gameplay mechanics, what you aren't understanding is that I can simply state that it was intended design for all other mobs to not be able to react to and dodge arrows because they would have otherwise programmed it, and that it was intended design for the Endermen's teleportation to be selective to projectiles based on water flow being able to strike the Enderman.

My point here is that arguing to save a gameplay mechanic by writing off other gameplay mechanics is textbook cherrypicking and a flawed form of argument.

You hold much value in lore, and I have provided you an inconsistency within it that goes against your scaling. What more do you want?

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

You show to us a video of an Enderman being saturated with arrows over multiple spaces and managing to avoid being struck should it be feasibly possible to strike the Ender Dragon they would need to not be at these speeds.

And that's the exact thing, the Enderman's only method of dodging is teleporting via thought, something it wouldn't need combat speed to demonstrate. My point is that you cannot scale it to anything else.

I don't think you're realizing what you're saying here. Every punch, kick, leap, dive, tumbleroll, etc are all done by thought, and a lot of those thoughts are reactions to getting attacked. The fact that you register it as thought implies that it is reaction speed (which is what I was giving to Endermen in the first place), and characters tagging Endermen fight fast enough to tag them, ergo combat speed.

And to requote, "Even with the depiction of mobs fighting each other alone, they do not dodge attacks. By your logic they can't even scale to themselves. Because you want to push for mobs to dodge so much you are forgetting that the combat limitations are the textbook definition of game mechanics."

You cannot use an absence of another game mechanic to further justify your contradictory scaling.

You are willing to justify the selective gameplay mechanic of Endermen dodging arrows by calling out gameplay limitations as gameplay mechanics, what you aren't understanding is that I can simply state that it was intended design for all other mobs to not be able to react to and dodge arrows because they would have otherwise programmed it, and that it was intended design for the Endermen's teleportation to be selective to projectiles based on water flow being able to strike the Enderman.

My point here is that arguing to save a gameplay mechanic by writing off other gameplay mechanics is textbook cherrypicking and a flawed form of argument.

See that's the part where we're walking in circles here. Despite addressing the fact that this is backed up by lore, you continue phrasing my argument as if it's nothing but a game mechanic, and therefore claiming I'm using game mechanics to justify game mechanics, and therefore using those same game mechanics to counter my argument. Nothing new here has been brought up. Everything in this quote has already been said several times. I can literally respond the exact same way as I have several times before.

Characters like Kratos show far more Destructive Capacity then what they show in gameplay where they can't get past a wall and has to climb around it, Mario gets damaged by massively massively weaker opponents and is not much faster than cannons in every game yet he's considered far above them both in strength and speed, many "street level" characters get building level tiers or higher in durability despite being harmed by bullets and not depicted as superhuman, etc etc. This treatment is double standards on multiple scales.

Vsbattles's official definition of game mechanics refer to them as things that are "not necessarily indicative of a character's or entity's actual abilities", and also says "Game mechanics are considered to be non-canon, and using examples of them in an argument is considered fallacious." The lore outright indicates the feat, so I don't know why you continue to constantly refer to it as game mechanics just to counter "game mechanics" with your own examples of game mechanics, and we ultimately make no progress in this discussion.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the lore outweighs game limitations, and that your argument revolves around treating mine as nothing but game mechanics just so you can have a solid ground to fight on.

 

[Abstractions]

I don't think you're realizing what you're saying here. Every punch, kick, leap, dive, tumbleroll, etc are all done by thought, and a lot of those thoughts are reactions to getting attacked. The fact that you register it as thought implies that it is reaction speed (which is what I was giving to Endermen in the first place), and characters tagging Endermen fight fast enough to tag them, ergo combat speed.

You are comparing physical actions to the act of teleportation, which are not one in the same.

You still need to adequately dissect the inconsistency of the Ender Dragon as well.

And to requote, "Even with the depiction of mobs fighting each other alone, they do not dodge attacks. By your logic they can't even scale to themselves. Because you want to push for mobs to dodge so much you are forgetting that the combat limitations are the textbook definition of game mechanics."

Mobs cannot react to arrows, this requires no assumptions. Just because they can fight each other does not defeat this very fact and all you're doing is reinforcing the selective nature of the Enderman's teleportation. I do not understand what's hard to grasp about this.

Surely your strawman might say that the mobs can't scale to themselves, but what I'm saying is that nothing can scale to the Enderman because inconsistency says so, they cannot react to arrows and the game is designed that way as much as the Enderman teleporting is.

See that's the part where we're walking in circles here. Despite addressing the fact that this is backed up by lore, you continue phrasing my argument as if it's nothing but a game mechanic, and therefore claiming I'm using game mechanics to justify game mechanics, and therefore using those same game mechanics to counter my argument. Nothing new here has been brought up. Everything in this quote has already been said several times. I can literally respond the exact same way as I have several times before.

And the Ender Dragon being a target to arrows is also backed up in lore, which you will cast aside as gameplay limitations. That is cherrypicking.

I can respond in the exact same fashion as well because I don't need to bring anything else up, it's your job to convince me, not the other way around.

Characters like Kratos show far more Destructive Capacity then what they show in gameplay where they can't get past a wall and has to climb around it, Mario gets damaged by massively massively weaker opponents and is not much faster than cannons in every game yet he's considered far above them both in strength and speed, many "street level" characters get building level tiers or higher in durability despite being harmed by bullets and not depicted as superhuman, etc etc. This treatment is double standards on multiple scales.

What happens with other characters has no bearing on this discussion here, you admit yourself that all Minecraft has is gameplay so why do you accept certain mechanics over others? This is a non-argument.

Vsbattles's official definition of game mechanics refer to them as things that are "not necessarily indicative of a character's or entity's actual abilities", and also says "Game mechanics are considered to be non-canon, and using examples of them in an argument is considered fallacious." The lore outright indicates the feat, so I don't know why you continue to constantly refer to it as game mechanics just to counter "game mechanics" with your own examples of game mechanics, and we ultimately make no progress in this discussion.

Bows being useful against the Ender Dragon is brought up in lore and she cannot dodge arrows, the lore indicates the anti-feat, so I don't know why you disregard it.

You're right, we won't make progress because you don't have anything new to bring to the table.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the lore outweighs game limitations, and that your argument revolves around treating mine as nothing but game mechanics just so you can have a solid ground to fight on.

The point I'm making here is that it doesn't, you accusing me of having zero leg to stand on is simply incorrect.

If we are going in circles, all I can say is that others read the arguments and come to what they think is the sensible conclusion, and I won't be responding to anything that keeps this circular argument going.

 

[Moritzva]

At least I’m not the only one who sees this debate is circular.

Let’s find a way to finish this, then.

 

[FinePoint]

At least I’m not the only one who sees this debate is circular.

Let’s find a way to finish this, then.

Three moderators and myself disagree, about seven other members agree. I suppose without devaluing the normal community members, the best way would be to get more people involved.

 

[FinePoint]

That said, given the only person arguing in support is using circular logic, and the rest either said very little or simply agreed without explanation, this should probably just be closed.

 

[Kulf_Boba]

bump