Talk:Zombified Piglin/Archive 1

Question about the Pigmen:

In the second paragraph, it says that they drop Grilled Pork and Feathers, but under the Drops-section, it only says Grilled Pork. Which one is correct? –The preceding unsigned comment was added by PiR (Talk . Please sign your posts with   !
 * Appearently they do drop both feathers and grilled pork, but feathers are so rare that the editor who put in "grilled pork" only didnt know it dropped feathers too. I havent seen them drop feathers yet either. --BlueLegion 11:26, 15 November 2010 (CST)

They dont drop feathers... its in the code... 76.244.147.252 00:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Pigman AI
There's been some noise on the forums about Pigman AI. Most of the data seems doubtful, but there are some interesting observations. At the moment, I don't think there's enough evidence to call it fact, but do you think we should at least mention the theory here? –The preceding unsigned comment was added by Izacque (Talk 10:27, 6 December 2010. Please sign your posts with   !
 * No, speculation is not allowed on the wiki. Miclee 17:30, 5 December 2010 (CST)

Attacking Ghasts?
As I was building in the Nether I saw a ghast wedged under a ledge such that he was effectively grounded - no space above or below. There were some zombie pigmen in the area and I didn't want to risk hitting one with an arrow so I walked over to the ghast to just kill it with my sword. On the way over one of its fireballs hit a zombie pigman, which then proceeded to run at the ghast and push it back some. The next thing I knew the ghast started taking damage and eventually died - zombie pigmen attack ghasts!

This literally just happened (paused the game and ran to the wiki to see if anyone else has seen this happen), so I don't have any more data but some MCEdit experimentation with similarly grounded ghasts is required. I don't normally see zombie pigmen go after flying ghasts, so it could be a pathing or distance issue. I also don't know if ghasts trigger all the zombie pigmen in an area like the player does on damage as I was too shocked to see one attacking a ghast to notice. RestfulMonad 19:50, 21 December 2010 (CST)


 * I got another ghast spawn in a tight place with two zombie pigmen nearby. I got the ghast to shoot one and he ran right towards it while the other one continued to wander aimlessly. I'll add a line to the Trivia section about this. RestfulMonad 05:01, 22 December 2010 (CST)


 * It's the usual enemy AI code. If one mob attacks another by accident, they start attacking each other. -GLaDOS, sir of thy broken 08:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Major misinformation corrections
I've reviewed related decompiled source code (alpha 1.2.6) and tried to do experiments as proof before making these corrections. It's possible that there are errors or inconsistency in my finding, e.g. SP/MP inconsistency. If you disagree, you need to present reproducible counterexamples. Xfs 07:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They do not drop feathers.
 * There is no evidence of they avoiding Ghasts or lava.
 * Their hostility will only increase, never decrease. And the hostility will be saved in NBTTagCompound as "Anger", this is why their hostility keeps the same whether you exit the Nether, exit game, or not. This is confirmed with experiments by myself.
 * There is no drowning under lava. Experiment proof: there is no air marker when you are under lava.
 * They will only become hostile to players, never to anything else. I couldn't reproduce the behavior that they turn hostile to Ghasts.
 * I made a mistake. I forgot the inheritance of Zombie Pigman from superclasses, where there is a characteristic that mobs can actually become hostile toward other mobs which is inherited by Zombie Pigmen. The ineffectiveness of the last experiment might be caused by the damage dealing method of fireballs. To be specific, Zombie Pigmen will turn hostile to fireballs per se if hit by explosion which disappear afterwards, and will turn hostile to Ghasts only if directly hit by fireballs which deal 0 damage. I just found this mistake when rewrting Health/Damage. Xfs 09:53, 28 December 2010 (CST)

Revert by User:Kizzycocoa
I added some new content after undoing revision 36310 so if you want to revert it to the lastest version that I contributed, it should be revision 36349. There is a discussion about this edit war on my talk page. Your opinions are welcome. Xfs 16:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw. that's a reason why I reverted it. For one, it's not a zombie sub-class. It's a mob. Sub classes are not in Minecraft. At all.
 * for two, I dislike the term "non peaceful". they are clearly peaceful. As such, they are neutural.
 * for three, you removed history on what zombie pigmen used to do.


 * overall, I see it as a sloppy edit that is harmful and misleading.--Kizzycocoa 10:40, 28 December 2010 (CST)


 * It is implemented as a subclass of zombie which means Zombie Pigman is a kind of Zombie. For example, Burning Spider would be a subclass of Spider, and Cobble Creeper would be a subclass of Creeper, as mentioned as prefixes. Zombie Pigman inherits the walking speed and dealing damage properties of Zombie, so they have the same walking speed, deal the same damage, and so are the other same properties. And they both inherit from the Mob class.


 * I removed the history section because it didn't reflect any difference between now and then, and contained incorrect information.


 * "Non peaceful" means that they only spawn when the difficulty is not on Peacful, not that they are not peaceful.
 * Zombie Pigmen are supposed to be immune to lava and fire, but if they are in lava for long enough, they will be damaged. They do play a burning animation in sunlight, but are unharmed from it.
 * This statement is self-contradictory. How are they damaged by lava if they are immune to lava? And this is not history because it's also exactly the same now.
 * Despite wielding a golden sword, they deal 2.5 damage instead of the normal 2 damage.
 * This is also not history.
 * Zombie Pigmen, prior to the 10th of November 2010 update, would never forgive the player for attacking them. Now after a certain amount of time has passed since an attack, they will become neutral.
 * This information is incorrect as I pointed out in the talk page. I can send you the source code if you want to review them. And this is also not history.
 * A direct hit by a Ghast's fireball will cause a Zombie Pigman to run directly towards the Ghast and attempt to attack it. This behavior has only been observed if the Ghast is touching the ground, usually occuring when the Ghast spawns under a low ceiling. Only the Zombie Pigman hit by the fireball will attack the Ghast - nearby Zombie Pigmen will not change behavior.
 * As the above three statements are either incorrect or not history, i merged this into the previous section.
 * What do you think now? Xfs 17:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * subclassed do not exist as of yet. so that means nothing.
 * peacefukl-only spawning also that means nothing. they are still peaceful. slimes spawn on peaceful too. yet, they're aggressive, albeit small ones can't hurt you. but they try.


 * that is true. bobbing up and down, they can get damaged. it is likely a game issue.
 * that can be removed, yes.
 * that is wrong. it is correct. they did used to never forgive the player. also, it IS history.
 * that can maybe stay, but I doubt it is only if the ghast is on the ground.


 * overall, three misinformed edits, one iffy, and one that's acceptable. That's the bottom line.--Kizzycocoa 17:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add, about the 'subclass': If anything, they'd be a subclass of pigmen. Miclee 17:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's worth pointing out that Xfs is using the word "subclass" in its programming context, where one object in the game is derived from another one. So to make a Zombie pigman, Notch started with a Zombie, and then changed some of the parameters. Therefore, a Zombie pigman, in programming terms, is a subclass of the Zombie class of objects. A suitable non-programming term might be genre and sub-genre. Kizzycocoa's statement about subclasses not being in Minecraft is wrong, because objects, classes of objects, and subclasses of objects are everywhere in Minecraft. That's why the blocks are basically the same, with just a few differences between them, they're all subclasses of the basic "Block Object". --DannyF1966 17:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought writing about spawning restriction of difficulty would be helpful, but I'd also agree if this is omitted. Again, this is not misinformation, this is only omittable information.
 * Subclass is a taxonomic rank, an abstract relational concept to define the relation between Zombie and Zombie Pigman. If you really dislike the wording, how about writing it as "Zombie Pigman is a kind of Zombie"?
 * Zombie Pigmen do suffer falling damage due to bugs in collision algorithm. I've proved this by setting logging break points in the fall function to observe falling distance. They constantly fall a little more than 4 meters, occasionally fall more than 60 meters. As falling damage is something completely irrelevant to lava damage, I can't agree with the original sentence which implies that the damage is related to lava. You're still not incorrect to assert that "bobbing up and down" causes the damage, only less accurate. And is there something about this that was different the past and can be counted as history?
 * Zombie Pigmen still do not forgive the player now. Here is a video proof for Zombie Pigmen being still unforgiving. The reason is explained in the talk page. As they are always unforgiving, there isn't any history to mention.
 * I have confirmed and explained how the Ghast hostility thing works in the talk page.
 * I didn't removed any of the correct information in the history. I just moved the non-historical information to the previous section.
 * At last, I never intend to harm or mislead, or I would not make such logical arguments here. Please stop using that kind of bad-faith assuming words.


 * Could you please state clear your opinion now on these issues so that I can continue contributing to that article on our consensus? Thank you. Xfs 02:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I must add, specifying that it is only me removing this information is sort of unfair. others also removed it, for the same reasons as myself.
 * I will confess, while entusiasm is nice, it is hard trudging through each and every point made, hence the late reply of me putting it off. but, here goes.


 * Spawn information is added already. It is in the infobox. For peaceful, yes. however, that should be added as "zombie pigmen do not spawn in peaceful, most likely due to their rebelling abilities to being hurt". lets face it, they are neutral. the definition is in the middle. they do not attack ghasts, nor people, unless provoked.


 * subclasses are just another word for prefix, and I really, REALLY do not want to have that added until prefix mobs are added. we simply CANNOT say "they are a subclass of zombie, and a prefix of pigmen". While we all respect the coding behind the game, to the player, it means nothing. I just think subclasses? should not be mentioned. prefixes however should, but only when released. otherwise, the article will confuse the hell out of the player.
 * on a side note, using subclass terms, you could say zombies and skeletons are prefix's of the human mobs, as are pigmen and zombie pigmen.


 * that paragraph is not about fall damage. it is about lava. if a zombie chooses to swim, the bobbing up and down makes them re-enter the lava. occasionally, this causes them to be damaged. it's likely a bug, but it happens. I saw three pigmen die from this bug myself.


 * if you read the blog, you will have seen Notch made the zombie pigmen forgive. that's pretty much the end to that matter completely.


 * ghast hostility can be added, however, I beg there be more research done. I highly doubt that it's only if Ghasts touch the floor, that they are attacked.


 * from the edit I saw, it was removed. this is due to the fact you mistook the zombie pigmen being unforgiving.


 * I did not mean to do so. I was merely stating the fact about the edit. it does harm the page, readability wise, as well as what type of mob they are, and the lava implications.


 * on a final note, I must say, most of your edit should not be re-added. some coding terms will only confuse the player. the lava "correction" is incorrect. the unforgivefulness is wrong. ghast-zombie pigmen, eh, I would like more research done. I doubt the variables with "on the ground" are 100% correct. and finally, the history error was related to the unforgivefulness.


 * so, that's what I think. the edit for zombie pigmen-ghast related damage should be added but further researched. The rest is either wrong, needs to be added with the addition of prefix mobs, or is just confusing to readers.--Kizzycocoa 15:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Subclass is only a word to describe the relation between Zombies and Zombie Pigmen. Equivelent information is conveyed with words like "a kind of". I have no perference on either choices.


 * The damage taken by Pigmen is actually falling damage and not lava damage. Thus my correction about lava is not incorrect.


 * You have committed a logical fallacy of argument from authority that you assert that Pigmen forgive now by simply citing Notch's statement as fact without providing any proof. And I have provided video proof on them being unforgiving.


 * There can't be more research done about Ghast hotility. I have shown and explained 100 percent of the code of the entire machanism.

Xfs 15:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * however, you could argue that they are a subclass of pigmen, who are a subclass of humans, thus removing zombies completely. I personally think coding terms should not be on the wiki, especially with prefix's incoming. it will only confuse the reader. we're a wiki for minecraft, not a development wiki for minecraft :S


 * that is incorrect. they cannot take "falling damage" from simply bobbing up and down in lava. that is just, I can't begin to explain how wrong that is. it's like taking falling damage from swimming in water. it makes no sense.


 * that video proves nothing, other than forgiveness is unrelated to Portals. what notch said is, they forgive -eventually-. he never said anything about portals. you have merely misread what notch has said.


 * and, if it is 100% accurate, then fine. add it. but I feel that it's worded in an odd way, and the "only on the floor" thing is incorrect, but, if it's 100% right, add it by all means.--Kizzycocoa 16:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't misread my opinion. What I said is I don't insist on using the word "subclass", I only want to convey the information of the relationship between Zombie Pigmen and Zombies.


 * How can you assert that is incorrect when you can't explain it and I have explained it? ("Zombie Pigmen do suffer falling damage due to bugs in collision algorithm..." in previous replies)


 * You made a fallacious conclusion as I pointed out (argument from authority). Please correct your argument with logic. Besides the video proof, I have code analysis in.


 * Please read the process in . "only on the floow" is incorrect indeed. Xfs 16:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * well, we can link to zombies and pigmen in the article, but honestly, I think it should stay as it is. after all, this is a general use wiki.


 * because, how can an entity suffer "fall" damage, from bobbing up and down in a deep lake? it sounds absolutely ridiculous to even consider, coding-wise or logic-wise. I'm sorry, but it does. zombies aren't hurt from bobbing up and down in water. It's to do with lava, and as such, it hints at imperfections to the immunity code.


 * well, if it's in the code, then I guess, sure. mention it. however, mention that notch attempted to fix it as well.


 * well, the article said "only on the floor", which is why that was removed. if that part is removed, and the wording is made more user-friendly, go ahead, add it. --Kizzycocoa 16:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's good to see we are gradually approaching to a consensus. As per your puzzlement about the falling damage, I have listed all possible fire/lava damage locations and proved they can't contribute to the damage taken by Pigmen in lava. And I have observed falling distance greather than 4 which causes falling damage when Pigmen are in lava by setting logging break points in the fall function to observe falling distance. I will provide bug report about this issue later as it's quite difficult to find the problem in a widely referenced function. Xfs 16:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And I have another issue. Please look at . What do you think? Xfs 16:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ok, there is a zombie pigman in the middle of a deep lava lake. just bobbing. does that cause falling damage at all, considering it's deep, and he is just bobbing there?
 * also, I think this time, zombie pigman should be used.--Kizzycocoa 16:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm stilling looking for the bug. And it's also ok to me to ignore the naming by whom adapted and implemented Zombie Pigman in Minecraft, Notch. Xfs 16:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in this case, yes. to call it a "zombie pig" is simply not right. I can't really say we should move it, as it makes no sense.--Kizzycocoa 17:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case, yes. Notch calling it a zombie pig is simply not right. And it makes no sense for him to name a mob adapted and implemented by himself in his game. And here is the answer to your puzzlement about falling damage. Xfs 17:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's..... so weird. So fall distance is accumulated in lava, but not in water? I suppose not figuring it out until now makes sense, since the lava is doing a lot of damage already (normally to the player). --JonTheMon 18:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ok, so, lava makes it act as if they are forever falling, until the value like, makes it too high, then they get hurt? Is this applicable for when they first enter lava? can it happen then too?
 * anyway, dumb it down a few levels, and sure. I'd be happy for that to go in. It explains why nothing happened with ghasts and lava as well. well, not reportedly. anyway, yeah. the ghast attacking and lava bug can be added. but the rest cannot.--Kizzycocoa 18:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You will also die immediately if you fall into lava from a place too high. Ghasts won't fall at all, their fall contains nothing. And please don't rule over qualified user contribution only based on your own opinion as that's an abuse of administrator privilege to gain unfair advantage in argument. I think our arguments should have equal status before conclusions can be drawn from logical argument regardless of whether your are an administrator or not. You are not inherently always right just because you're an administrator, as three of your claims have been proved false by me. Xfs 18:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin.
 * Checkmate. XD


 * still, there has never been any research into lava immune creatures. so, we all did not know *shrugs*.
 * even admins aren't right all the time. and users.--Kizzycocoa 18:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You were one, and you're pending now, according to yourself. I felt uneasy about the words "the rest cannon" as if we were not equal and I were being ruled by someone. As you can see, I spent almost 100 more times effort to argue with you for writing just several sentences when you wouldn't take little effort to present your own logical proof to refute my argument or think about whether you were actually right. And I'm not going to edit this article for now because there is someone even more irrational than you. It should be a little right for me to complain on this issue after wasting two days arguing on this. Xfs 19:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Stepping back from conflict between users (which is irrelevant to what the article should contain), what I see is: they don't drop feathers, they don't currently seem to forgive (can be considered a bug), they can die due to falling damage (including dieing in lava due to the way it works in regards to falling damage -- which I would probably classify as a bug), and they can become hostile to ghasts when hit by a fireball. Those are the facts that should be reflected on the article page. --Lordebon 18:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems good to me. --JonTheMon 19:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * yes. I do wish to add, I do not want to appear irrational. but, several of those edits had no fact, until that argument. and, Xfs, no offence, but I didn't reply so much because my thoughts were on common logic. you cannot get fall damage in lava, and the ghast on the floor thing seemed wrong, which you said it was. the only real thing here is an ammendment to the ghast thing which you proved me right, and digging into lava code to find an anomaly.


 * I also wish to add, Miclee is the "creator" of zombie pigmen. it is natural they do not want the page based on their creation to have complex codespeak. because some of your edit was codespeak, of which would be bad to add in such language.--Kizzycocoa 19:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Attacking Ghasts
"A direct hit by a Ghast's fireball will cause a Zombie Pigman to run directly towards the Ghast and attempt to attack it. This behavior has only been observed if the Ghast is touching the ground, usually occuring when the Ghast spawns under a low ceiling. Only the Zombie Pigman hit by the fireball will attack the Ghast - nearby Zombie Pigmen will not change behavior."

I don't really see why this is a bit of extraordinary "Information & History". Any aggressive mob that is attacked by another mob will fight back as best as its pathfinding abilities will let it; anybody who has seen a skeleton hit a creeper with an arrow but not kill it has seen the resulting counter-attack by the creeper. I think that either a note should be made that this is not extraneous, or it should be removed. Frozenne 10:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming
If Squids are called squids because the texture name is Squid. Shouldn't Zombie pigmen be called Pig Zombies? Thats their texture name and their name in the code...TheMummy 18:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC) That's true. I suppose that "squid" is easier to say than "squid-like creature lacking beak and having too many tentacles." While not as exagerated, "zombie pigman" sounds a lot better than "pig zombie." IKaleb 03:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The concept for pigmen was pushed by miclee for a long time, and he would always refer to them as pigmen. likewise, notch responded using the name pigman. so despite the name of the texture, pigman should be considered the proper name

That said, now that 1.8 is out... when a Pig Zombie kills you, it says "___ was killed by Pig Zombie." So doesn't that beat out Twitter statements as far as official names go? Dazuro 00:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Then we look at http://twitter.com/#!/notch/status/57426954093211648 where Notch clearly states Zombie Pigmen just as I do when referring to them. PigZombie is easier to save space in code. Unless you'd think writing ZombiePigmen is easier than writing PigZombie. XaPhobia 23:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Trivia "thx xaphobia"
The zombie pigman skin was made by xaphobia (also known as X__x). I believe notch put that message on the skin as 'thanks xaphobia' when it was first implemented. It's also possible xaphobia put it on the skin himself because he was kind of an ass like that.


 * The previously stated information about my putting it on there is a lie. Initially, Notch asked me if he could use the skin which I had on at the same time as Miclee had when I let him use the skin. It was red, with no text on it at all. When Notch converted the red blood into green, he added "Thx xaphobia" to it. In fact, the original file is still unedited from before it was added to the Nether. Created October 18th, 2010 and last modified October 24th, 2010. If you compare my original file with the update, the "thx xaphobia" is not even there. (Side note about X__x/XaPhobia: I never EVER shortcut my words. Any time I write something, I write it out in whole. For example, I would never write thanks as "thx". Even if it's to save space.) XaPhobia 19:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well there you see this resolves it!

X__x has confirmed that the zombie pigman skin was indeed made by him and submitted to Notch. It is unknown whether he has made more skins for Minecraft.

It is also confirmed by this tweet: http://twitter.com/#!/notch/status/28692763996

Not immune to lava and fire
I used to have a world that i made a lava lake in. Using the SSP command mods (the only mods i were using were the commands and planes) i happily spawned a few zombie pigmen in the middle of the lake. After a few minutes, they started dropping dead in the lava. i spawned a few more and they did the same thing. They are NOT immune to lava, i've seen them die from it a few times --Deanm 00:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How deep was the lava lake? Lava does not count as a liquid for the purposes of falling damage; that is, if they float around in lava for a bit, every time they lose altitude, their "falling damage" increases. Once they finally touch a solid block, including the bottom of the lava lake, they take all that damage at once, usually enough to kill them instantly. - Alphap T ~ C 00:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The lava lake was 1 block deep on one side, and two on the other. I spawned them in the deeper side. (It was completely even in how deep it was on that side)

Thanks for the input, i'd argue further but you made a good point and someone would just throw lines of code at me --Deanm 13:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They are NOT immune to lava. Seen it with my own eyes and I will make a video sometime soon...--TheKax 15:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice to know someone else has seen it. Thanks --Deanm 16:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Golden apples?
http://www.minecraftforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=1020&t=296392 100 reasons to go to the Nether:

"Brainader wrote: 25. Getting gold apples! Guess i encounterd a bug, but when a ghast killd 3 pigmen after i fell down and almost died, i discovered 7 golden apples in my invent :P

Sneeman wrote: yeah. if a ghast kills a pigman they drop golden apples."

Can someone confirm this?--SpyroCraft007 was here 21:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Refuted in code, Minecraft 1.0. Riking 01:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * acy.bl is rottenFlesh, acy.bp is goldNugget.

protected void a(boolean paramBoolean, int paramInt) {   int i = this.Y.nextInt(2 + paramInt); for (int j = 0; j < i; j++) { b(acy.bl.bM, 1); }   i = this.Y.nextInt(2 + paramInt); for (j = 0; j < i; j++) b(acy.bp.bM, 1); }

Can now use portals as of 1.5_1
In the overworld, Ghasts rarely spawn near portals, Well, While i was in a dungeon, I heard a ghast whining, When i poked my head up, I also saw two zombie pigmen....

They might be able to use them now. Or only when there's a ghast nearby

Can someone confirm this? SAraisXenoQueen 07:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Was it raining? Perhaps the pigs just got hit by lightning. – ultradude25 ( T at 07:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also please stop posting this in multiple places. Could you provide a picture?Darkid 11:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I was testing this in the Nether a few minutes ago; I got three zombie pigmen lured into a portal. They vanished. I went into the portal to find them, but alas, no zombie pigmen. I don't know... But Ghasts definitely spawn near portals. --R ocĸetor talk  11:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, The reason why i say this is, I heard a ghast whining in the overworld, I naturally, did not want to deal with a ghast in the overworld, so I exited the game. I looked for a nether portal in MCEdit, and did not find one. I would post pictures, but how could that prove that the portal wasn't there, if i could just entirely avoid taking pictures of it? I'm rather confused on this matter, as I don't know how a ghast could spawn in the overworld without a portal. There had to be one somewhere, and I personally have not encountered lightning in-game, So I simply cannot prove this matter.

I -CAN- say however, that the portal-less ghasts have occurred three more times, on differing seeds. SAraisXenoQueen 10:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw a group of four zombie pigmen walk through a portal, one at a time. I was on the surface world at the time. Hlast 15:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Targeting issues?
I am pretty sure this happens with every mob, but have only tested with zombie pigmen. I was in a pit I could not escape from, and also in the pit was a hostile zombie pigman. I climbed a two block ladder and stood on the top edge. The zombie pigman stood next to the ladder making no attempt to attack me. Is this a bug, and does it apply to all hostile mobs? Bobbobbob 23:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)bobbobbob

Drops WTF
We've had feathers, we've had golden apples and now we have a 1.5% chance of golden swords?!?! Removed. All they drop is cooked porkchops in killing more than 200 zombie pigmen.

Seeing Through Walls
Can they see through walls? If I hit one, the other ones attempt to attack me, even from the other side of the walls. --Trollrilla 02:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hostility
Its not the case that the all the ZP are hostile or none are. It seems to be somehow localised to the ZPs who are hit by you, or who are near you when you hit a ZP, or are near other hostile ZPs. So its a kind of contagion, rather than a global trigger, and if your nether is somewhat compartmentalised you'll be able to walk straight past/shove some ZPs without any difficulty, whilst others will actively try to kill you like a standard hostile mob. Its a somewhat complex set of behaviours. I'm wondering what the code says, but java isn't something that I read. Jestingrabbit 12:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Zombie Pigman Frozen Glitch
In SMP, if the server has monsters=false and a pig is struck by lightning, it may result in a glitched zombie pigman object that behaves similar to the client-side TNT glitch, it can be passed through, does not move or obey physics and cannot be hit.

I can provide screenshots if anyone wants --HexZyle 03:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting bug! I don't think a screenshot would be helpful, though, because it would be functionally identical to a screenshot of a normal pigman.  I think it is believable enough by itself.  It certainly sounds like a Mojang bug.  Verhalthur (talk)(contribs) 03:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That criteria is only a guess. My little brother was playing on a server i set up on his computer so he could use the /give commands. His computer lags quite a bit when running both the server and the client but with pig spawners everywhere and pockets full of TNT, he was having fun. Then he kinda freaked out, wondering why there was something 2 blocks high when I had set monsters=false. There had been a thunderstorm on the world but he had also been playing around with the portal blocks, but I'm pretty sure it was the former that caused it - a zombie pigman, just standing there, under a tree. I removed the blocks out from under its feet and swung at it a couple times, but it just remained floating there in mid-air. I'm assuming it's client side, I took a few screenshots but I didn't bother re-logging, because my little brother just wanted to get on with his game. Screenshots would prove it, seeing as i can remove all the blocks around the zombie pigman and just have him floating in mid-air. --HexZyle 04:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I couldn't seem to replicate the bug with Singleplayer Commands. Is there any way you could attempt to replicate it?  Verhalthur (talk)(contribs) 04:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Singleplayer commands dont work on the server, do they? The fact that it was a client side issue meant that there had to be a server for the client to have an issue. Therefore this bug would only be SMP. Can the vanilla server be modded directly? --HexZyle 05:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I do remember a simple singleplayer mod that makes lightning strike in huge amounts everywhere, all the time. It might transfer to vanilla multiplayer servers if put into the host files.  I'll try to find that again.  Verhalthur (talk)(contribs) 14:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * that sounds frekin awesome! --HexZyle 00:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah! Here it is. You have to look in the description of this Youtube video here for it.  Hopefully you can replicate the bug!  Verhalthur (talk)(contribs) 03:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Images
It would seem that some of the images on the page exist solely to argue that pigmen can burn to death from prolonged exposure to lava. Should these not be deleted in the light of the articles apparent clarity on the fall damage explanation of these deaths, considering that the pictures show nothing to disprove this. (If anything they support it, the porkchop is outside of the lava, suggesting that the death occured when the pigman left the lava and took the sum of the accumulated damage.) Troagador 23:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably. BTW I tested this method by luring zombie pigmen into lava, and then created a solid block in the lava for them to stand on, then pushed them on to it. All the zombie pigmen pushed onto the dry block from the lava died. --HexZyle 00:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Zombie pigman ate my wheat
I was trying to tame a zombie pigman for fun, so I right-clicked on him with wheat, and my wheat disappeared. HE ATE IT D: --AlixeTiir 06:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yea as of 1.9 prerelease 2, breeding is now in MC and right-clicking any mob with a wheat will feed it and turn on "love mode" or something. Idk if all mobs are supposed to do this. There are still bugs. - Asterick6 07:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hostile and non-hostile behavior
Before I butcher the Combat section in the article, I'd like to share my experiences with fighting zombie pigmen. Note on terminology: Hostile means that they will attack the player once he is within range. Aggressive means they are hostile and actively pursuing the player.

I was fighting some zombie pigmen to pass the time between growing nether warts (1.9 pre5). I discovered that upon attacking one zombie pigman, other zombie pigmen in a certain radius would turn hostile, but not attack, since I was outside of their aggressive range. This is evident by the fact that all nearby zombie pigmen grunt when one of them is attacked, but they do not neccesarily converge on the player when that happens. I was able to pick off multiple zombie pigmen at a distance with my bow, and none of them became aggressive.

In addition, zombie pigmen that became hostile because you attacked them will remain hostile for longer than zombie pigmen that 'saw' you attack one of them. I discovered this when I was walking near a group of neutral pigmen, and a single one became aggressive because I shot it with an arrow earlier.

So it looks like zombie pigmen hold a 'seeing is believing' mentality, meaning that if they are not within range of the zombie pigman that you attacked, they will not become hostile. However, they can still 'see' you attacking one of them through walls and such. Feel free to test this behavior. I will add it to the article if there are no objections.

LTK 70 16:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that it could also be possible that upon attacking a zombie pigman with a bow, the radius of blocks that pigmen become aggressive in could be centred around yourself. This means that the zombie pigman you shot with a bow becomes aggressive via normal rules (e.g. spider) while any zombie pigmen around you also become aggressive (but perhaps there were none) --HexZyle 23:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Just tested it, this is not the case. Pigman hostility is centered around the pigman that is attacked, not the player. LTK 70 13:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are nearby pigmen irritated by one of their kind being shot by an arrow? or just melee? --HexZyle 23:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Both melee and arrows. The pigmen within range of the one that was shot became hostile. The pigmen right beside me didn't care. So attacks with a bow and arrow are not exempt from aggravating groups of pigmen. If that were the case, someone probably would have pointed it out as a bug at some point in the past. LTK 70 23:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Rename to Pig Zombie
Notch referred to it several times like that and even the spawner egg is named "Spawn Pig Zombie". Xeoxer 16:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Health/Armour
No point in starting an edit war, so let's take this here instead. First off, 10 hearts by itself cannot be correct. Stone swords deal 2.5 damage, yet zombie pigmen do not die to 4 regular stone sword hits. This means that they must either have armor points, or more than 10 hearts of health. There are several points implying that the former is the case. Since armor points no longer affect drowning/suffocation damage, if zombie pigmen have armor points instead of increased health, they will still die from taking suffocation damage 20 times (as opposed surviving more than 20 damage intervals if they simply had more health). I believe someone tested this before, but I can't recall where I read it. Another way to test this would be to force them to take exactly 10 hearts of fall damage. Jeb also mentioned on Twitter that he added armor points to some mobs to make them tougher, but I can't provide a link to said statement off-hand. I believe he mentioned it somewhere around the third 1.9 prerelease, in case you want to look it up. 84.156.13.241 22:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Fist: 22 hits (20) Wood Sword: 6 hits (5) Stone Sword: 5 hits (4) Iron Sword: 4 hits (4) Diamond Sword: 4 hits (3) Stone Axe: 6 hits (5) Stone Pick: 8 hits (7) Stone Shovel: 11 hits (10) Suffocation: 20 hits This should prove that they do have armor points. Unless I miscalculated, it's two armor points (one vest). 84.156.13.152 21:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was the one who added this to this page and the Zombie page, and I too based it on suffocation. They definitely have armour points, and by my knowledge of how armour damage reduction works, 2 additional damage = 2 armour points. Shellface 18:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sick of the constant reverts to incorrect information, so I turned on Minecraft, went into Creative Mode, found me some Zombie Pigmen in the Nether and did some testing. I checked all of the following damage values twice to ensure I didn't miscount. All hits were non-critical with regular unenchanted weapons/tools. Here's how many hits it took the Zombie Pigmen to die (with the amount of hits they would require with just 10 hearts and no armor points in brackets):
 * I shall lay this all to rest.
 * We checked the source code. the Zombie Pigman is basically a zombie. it's forced to use the zombie entity in the code.
 * There is no "armour" attribute. and the health is definitely 20. 20 being 20 half hearts, so 10 full hearts
 * so, your primary research? doesn't quite measure up to this proof from the modding community. and I hardly think you can call the source code a liar about itself, can you? --Kizzycocoa 23:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And guess what? The zombie has armor points, too. Are you trying to tell me that something that anyone can check for themselves during gameplay with hardly any effort at all isn't true despite being right there? Yes, Zombie Pigmen have 20 health. But they also have armor points. If they didn't have armor points, how else would you explain that they can take 20 damage from weapons and not die while 20 damage from suffocation kills them? I'm looking forward to seeing your explanation. 84.156.13.152 01:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect weapon discrepency. I mean, diamond swords USED to take out creepers etc in two hits. now, it takes 3.
 * Also, I'll have you know these are modders. modders KNOW how to mod, and if there is not any armour applied to zombie pigmen, THERE IS NOT ANY ARMOUR. simple as.
 * Also, I read your entire statement in the tone I'd imagine of "Edgeworth" from a phoenix wright DS game. thought you'd like to know. U: --Kizzycocoa 21:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not making any sense. For all other mobs that I can think of, the number of fist hits required to kill them is the same as the amount of suffocation hits they take to die. Only Zombies and Zombie Pigmen are different. You completely dismissed the undeniable proof I provided, refuse to take a few minutes to check these facts for yourself, and instead of actually making sensible arguments, all you're doing is to point at modders and say "these guys say Zombie Pigmen have 20 health and no armor points, so I'm right and you and your proof are wrong". You're not even actually providing proof for your claims yourself, you're just pointing at others. How you can still claim I'm wrong when I provided the only answer to this whole issue that actually makes sense (armor points) and would explain what is going on (armor points do not reduce suffocation damage), when you're not even capable of giving a single half-sensible explanation yourself?
 * Yet instead of allowing me to add the armor point, you're going as far as to threaten to "protect" this page to ensure that nobody can correct the data. You're not even listening to me - you're simply abusing your administrative rights.
 * I want you to prove that I'm wrong. Your personal opinion is not proof. Show me the source code, and show me where it says that Zombie Pigmen do not have armor points. Zombie Pigmen taking code from the regular Zombie mob is only further proof that Zombie Pigmen have armor points, because regular Zombies have armor points, too. It's even on this very wiki, and you don't seem to be denying the existence of the regular Zombie's armor points. 84.156.15.223 23:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * before I start on what will be the most eye-rollingly blunt post there is, 2 points.


 * 1: < BR > is the ugliest way to post. ever.
 * 2: your entire argument is not a "win if the other guy loses". it's a "win if I prove my point". otherwise, we could say near enough anything.


 * hey, that pigman drops a golden nugget, and the creator thought of the cereal of the same name at the same time!


 * no. that does not work without a HUGE piece of proof. and even then, that claim is 99.999% likely to be utter rubbish.


 * so, with that out the way, lets move on to your points.
 * how can you prove a lack of code, is the first point. simple: you can't. a lack of data values? even if added, I'm sure you'd say the image was tampered with.
 * second, the "admin abuse" threat. wrong. I was saying that to prevent an edit war, which I have been successful in preventing. if it is proven that they do have armour, I shall eat my humble pie, and you may smash it in my face beforehand if you so choose to do so.
 * third, let me say I asked a credible team of modders, in a chat with two prominent Minecraft modders, 303_ and rigusami. I am not relying on them for proof, but that is the atmosphere I was in. not some kiddie-club irc chatroom.
 * fourth, you said Jeb_ added armour a while back. as we're flailing our arms in the air screaming endless choruses of the "proof" song, I ask you link to proof of that very statement.
 * fifth, there is not a mob in Minecraft that has had armour in the past. at all. even if it were added, why would Jeb_ add it, when the mob's health is clearly representative of their strength?
 * finally, zombies USED to have armour abilities, due to an old Survival feature of random armour on zombies. this has since been removed, and zombies have, since indev and before, had zero armour.


 * I'll be honest, your post is confusing and hard to read - I glossed over a lot I didn't see relevant - and got the main gist of it. mostly as you post in large blocks. but, I hope I've addressed your points.


 * as for your research, I have followed it up just after typing all this. while I can accept and confirm they have 1 extra full heart, there is nothing to suggest it being armour.
 * upon followup asking, I was told to download a coder pack, however, as my time is limited (I'm going to bed right after this), I cannot do so.


 * HOWEVER. I shall not be amending the page's healthbar YET. this could be the result of a bug, and if so, does not actually contribute to the health, but to the bug section. this is to prevent misinformation. as it affects BOTH the zombie and pigman who share a common code source, and came out of no-where, I have to assume it is a bug.


 * elaborating on this point, I cannot prove it is health due to their resistance to-
 * wait, hold on. he switched the effect
 * upon further experimentation, the discrepancy is NOT armour.
 * why? because splash potions of harming affect zombies, ADDING to their health. which doesn't affect armour values.


 * they REGENERATED the health I took, 4 hits of my fist, when it was used. they regenerated it all back. so, regardless, this is NOT armour. but I still believe it is definitely a bug. --Kizzycocoa 01:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Due to your lack of actual counter-arguments, I was having the impression that I already had proven my point and you were simply not accepting it. However, at least you finally seem to be willing to listen, so let's put that aside.


 * Your example of golden nuggets is different - something like that would be a wild assumption with no base at all. Armor points, on the other hand, have a noticable effect during gameplay, and the effect observed matches with what armor points do. So, even if it isn't the correct answer, it isn't baseless.
 * You make a good point about the code; however, I'd still have liked to see it just to confirm the lack of any code indicating armor points myself.
 * As for Jeb_'s statement, I tried to look for it, but Twitter doesn't let me check his older tweets. As I don't have a twitter account myself, I asked a friend of mine to ask him whether Zombies and Zombie Pigmen have armor points, and will link to Jeb_'s response (if he responds).
 * As for why he would add armor points to mobs instead of simply increasing their health... I can't answer that. I'm neither Jeb_ nor Notch. Maybe he wants them to be tougher to kill with weapons, yet doesn't want them to take forever to kill with armor-piercing damage like suffocation or splash potions. I can only make guesses. However, just because mobs have never had armor points in the past doesn't mean that it is completely impossible that they will ever receive any (or already have received them).
 * I'm glad that you finally acknowledge their extra health/armor (whatever it is). However, there is one point that suggests it being armor - suffocation. The armor page says that suffocation damage (among a few other types of damage) ignores armor since the redesign of how armor works, and it is easy to confirm this yourself (drop gravel or sand on yourself while wearing an undamaged armor, so that you suffocate. Your armor will not degrade and the damage you take from the suffocation will never be reduced). With this out of the way, Zombie Pigmen die to 20 suffocation damage, as if they only had 10 hearts of health. Yet, as you have confirmed yourself, it takes 22 damage to kill them by means that are affected by armor (fists, tools, weapons). As it is doubtful that they have different health values for different types of damage (though I'm willing to test this if necessary), armor points seem to be the most logical explanation to me.
 * I'm aware that splash potions of harming heal Zombies instead of damaging them, but I don't see how this is supposed to prove anything about armor points at all. It neither proves nor disproves armor points, as splash potions completely ignore armor. 84.156.13.73 10:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * hit a pigman 4 times, then throw a potion of harming to them. potions do not heal armour, so you can count their health, and continue from there. --Kizzycocoa 09:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I think I understand what you want me to do. However, that would require that armor points from mobs actually have a limited durability (in other words, degrade and break over time).
 * I went into the Nether in Creative Mode to test it, but as expected, if they have armor points as I suspect, the durability of those armor points is either infinite, or at least way too high to matter in normal gameplay. I hit a Zombie Pigmen with my fists 10 times, then threw a splash potion of Harming II at it to heal it. I did this 15 times in total (as I had 15 potions with me), yet when I ran out of splash potions, from full health, it still took 22 hits to kill the Zombie Pigman. So I'm afraid that this, as I mentioned, doesn't prove much, except that if they have armor points, the durability of their armor points is too high to matter in normal gameplay. The results I received could be from either increased health or armor points with infinite (or very high) durability.
 * Unless you have another idea of what I could do to test this, can we, at least for the time being, agree that they have 2 armor points (one vest) for the reasons stated earlier, or at least have some kind of effect on them that acts the same way (thus, even if it wasn't armor points, it isn't really misinformation)? After all, it can't really be increased health, as they wouldn't die to 20 suffocation damage if they had 22 health. 84.156.14.253 11:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, can we? I'd like to come to a conclusion with this, eventually. 84.156.19.122 10:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * if they have "unlimited" armour, then they'd be unkillable. that's NONSENSE. also, try to actually go for SMALLER damage. hit them 4 times, they try healing. 4 is all you need to get rid of the 2 armour, and 2 health. and for me, it regenerated all health. therefore, it is health.
 * but that aside, you just shot yourself in the foot. you used a Potion of Harming II, after hitting 10 times. that potion "harms" (Heals) 5 hearts, aka 10 fistsfuls of damage. therefore, you have single handedly proven they do not have armour, but instead, one extra heart. if what you claim is correct, then you took away 5 hearts, gave them back via potion, and took away 22, proving the extra health IS health. --Kizzycocoa 11:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I said their armour has unlimited (or very high) durability. That's completely different from infinite armour. That aside, you don't seem to understand how armour works, so this whole argument is pointless - I have long since proven my point, yet you are simply not understanding it and thus keep dodging the arguments you apparently cannot counter. I will correct the article now, and I do not want you to revert it again. Ask a different admin to review this argument if you still doubt me - preferably one that actually knows how armour works. 84.156.11.144 21:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * nothing has been proven as of yet. so we have to assume:
 * A: this is a bug of some kind
 * B: This bug is within normal boundaries of the game's current health system
 * you have not proven any stupid armour point. if anything, you've proven the opposite. to say they have high durability armour? that's just attempting to make any story to make your idea right. I am working from an admin, and from the coding side of things.
 * why add armour values at all to them? why not just health? it makes no sense.
 * this is also a recent bug to do with the pre releases. not 1.0. all the more that this is a bug.
 * until you disprove that it is armour, we must follow the standard health system,rather than making up things about armour durabilities, and values that could possibly exist.
 * due to the high traffic of this issue, I am now temporarily protecting both pages. I warned you this would happen if reverted. as an admin, I cannot allow baseless conjecture to seep into the article, rather than explain with the health system we've used since Indev.--Kizzycocoa 22:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have proven it. You simply refuse to accept it. I do not know what else I am supposed to be doing to prove the armour, as I have done everything possible to me to prove it. You haven't done anything except repeatedly tell me "lol you're wrong because I say so". You haven't explained why suffocation kills them faster than fist damage. You haven't disproven any of my arguments. You're just abusing your admin rights to vandalize a page and prevent everyone else from cleaning up. You clearly have no idea how armour works, you haven't countered a single of my arguments, and you haven't made a single sensible argument yourself. The only thing you have proven is that you refuse to have this page contain up-to-date info, because "it was like that since Indev". I cannot help but wonder how someone like you could possibly have become admin. 84.156.11.144 23:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am stopping someone completely set on the idea that the armour value somehow came back. as an admin, I must make sure to moderate one argument against the other. and I have not seen a shred of evidence that you have proven what it is or isn't. --Kizzycocoa 23:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then maybe you should get your eyes checked, because it appears that you have been blind at the time. You even acknowledged the additional damage required to kill them yourself before, and now you're once again claiming that I haven't provided any proof. What you're doing is complete idiocy, and you know it.
 * You're abusing your administrative powers to gain an unfair advantage in an argument, essentially making your opinion worth more than my arguments despite the fact that your opinion has been proven wrong. You're valuing your false, unfounded logical fallacies over the completely plausible explanations I and the original contributor have provided and refuse to listen to a single ounce of logic.
 * I have nothing else to add to this. I can only hope another admin sees this argument and sets right what I don't have the power to set right. Enjoy your vandalism while it lasts, Kizzycocoa. 84.156.11.144 00:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * wow, big man. decided to call me by my name at the end. terrifying.
 * I am doing this to protect the page from spam. your undying belief is baseless. I concede that they have extra health, which I thought was just a troll edit. but not only do the tests prove it is health and not armour, is also proves it regenerates. to try to pin it on armour durability is just clutching for straws. there is no definitive proof this is anything other than an extra half a heart. and I find it pathetic this has escalated to a place where I needed to use my admin powers to TEMPORARILY protect the page from the undying faith of someone so blind to wanting them to have armour, they dismiss all logical conclusions.
 * for one, why armour? why not just more health?
 * it's insane you're pressing this issue so far, when the much simpler, and much likely candidate is extra health.
 * I do not fear other admins coming here. I know what they will say. that in some way, I've dealt with this wrong, but overall, there is no other way they'd have done so. did I abuse my powers? no. I was protecting the page as you're adamant to change it with no proof of what type of health it is. it's absurd it got to this level, but it has. and there's not any other conclusion that could have happened at this point in time. --Kizzycocoa 01:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, nice "discussion". Here's my potion of view:
 * According to my understanding of obfuscated code (yeah, I've read some... it hurts, but can be done):
 * Zombies have 20 hp and 2 armor points.
 * Zombie's armor cannot be damaged (i.e. value "2" is hardcoded).
 * Every armor point gives 4% protection from most damage types.
 * That gives a Zombie 8% protection. In other words: Zombies receive only 92% damage (from affected sources of course).
 * After reduction, damage is rounded down to the nearest integer, but fractional part that has been cut off (leftover) is stored, and is added to the next received damage.
 * Leftover damage isn't "cleared" when a Zombie is healed by Splash Potion of Harming.
 * There is a bug: leftover damage is not stored when a chunk is saved.
 * With 8% protection you need to deal 22 damage to kill a Zombie. Why armor and not extra health? I don't know.
 * How to test my theory? To kill a Zombie you need one of the following:
 * 22 punches, because 22 * 92% = 20.24.
 * 20 hits of suffocation, because suffocation bypasses armor.
 * 3 direct hits with Splash Potion of Healing (18 damage total, bypasses armor) + 3 punches, because 18 + 3 * 92% = 20.76.
 * 1 punch + Splash Potion of Harming + 21 punches, because:
 * first punch doesn't damage it, just adds 0.92 to "leftover damage";
 * Potion of Harming heals it, but leaves "leftover" intact;
 * 21 punches inflict 19.32 damage + 0.92 leftover, that kills the Zombie.
 * 1 punch + save/load game + 22 punches, because:
 * first punch doesn't damage it (Zombie still has 20 hp), just adds 0.92 to "leftover damage";
 * save/load cycle clears "leftover";
 * 22 punches inflict 20.24 damage.
 * This isn't "bugged health". That's just simple two potions of armor.
 * Please, try this at home.
 * If Zombies have in fact no armor, how many HP do they have? According to scenarios 1-5: 22, 20, 21, 21, or 23...? --mgr 02:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * ..and what's more interesting: Magma Cubes have armor too.
 * To test: poison one cube, wait few moments (its HP will go down to 1) and punch it. It will die after second punch because of armor. --mgr 05:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * May we have some screenshots of the code? I have not been able to lay my hands on the stuff at all.--Kizzycocoa 12:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. I don't have any code at all. I'm just reading obfuscated code that is distributed in minecraft.jar package... it's hardly readable.
 * Have you tried recreating my zombie-killing-scenarios described above? I believe they are sufficient proof that Zombies have armor. --mgr 16:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone explain me how you Armor and Health is measured and I'll give it a go --Quatroking -  MCWiki Administrator  21:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope it's clear enough (English isn't my first language):
 * Every mob type has two parameters: max health and armor, both are integer numbers that remain unchanged during mob's life (it means that mob's armor has no durability, i.e. never "breaks").
 * Each hit point is half of heart.
 * Mobs are spawned with full health. If it reaches zero, mob dies. HP can be restored (potion effects), but cannot exceed max health.
 * Each armor point is half of vest and reduces incoming damage by 4%. Some types of damage ignore armor (see: Armor).
 * After reduction, damage is rounded down, it's fractional part is stored in a hidden mob's attribute that is added to the next (reduced) attack.
 * Example: 5 armor points equal 20% reduction. One hit for  damage will hurt mob for  points. Ten hits for  damage each will also hurt mob for  damage, thanks to stored fractional damage.
 * In pseudocode:

if ( dmgType is physical ) { modifier = (100 - 4 * mob.AP) / 100 x = dmg * modifier + mob.leftover dmg = floor(x) mob.leftover = x - dmg } mob.hp = mob.hp - dmg
 * --mgr 11:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have finally cracked the save format.
 * here you all go. a chunk .dat file
 * the confusing thing? it states 20. this was the test map I made to test this theory in the first place, so it is using the pre-release.
 * http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3922896/c.e.9.dat
 * more research to come. --Kizzycocoa 01:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * after 7 hits, he only took 6 damamge. there is still no armour value. this is strange. it isn't health, but it isn't armour either.--Kizzycocoa 01:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * now, this is strange. I made a grid of 23 squares, and did 0 hit, 1 hit, 2 hit etc.
 * the file shows some have the same health, but I definitely hit them.
 * the files show NOTHING about armour. the entries are identical.
 * here is the file of the chunk. unmodified, ofc. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3922896/c.e.9%282%29.dat
 * so, this proves that they don't have armour. but, they also don't have extra health. what on earth is going on here? O.o --Kizzycocoa 01:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Armor value for every mob is hard-coded and doesn't change during mob's life - that's why you don't see "2" saved in a chunk (there is no need to save it).
 * Why some entities are identical? Because "leftover damage" (see pseudocode above) isn't saved. Your results should be like this:


 * Hit #1 and #13 deals no damage, because it's absorbed by armor. Leftover damage isn't saved (bug?), and after save/load cycle Zombie #1 will still need 22 hits to be killed (tested).
 * Anyways: I'm reverting page to "20 hp + 2 armor (= 8% dmg reduction)". It you have better explanation, why Zombies have exactly 8% damage reduction, please prove it. My arguments are all mentioned above (looked into decompiled code, made 5 simple test-scenarios, dmg table). --mgr 09:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * for now, assuming this is true, I'll allow this and remove the protection.
 * however, I must stand by my decision of protecting the page. without doing so, we would not have got to this stage in the discussion, and in doing so, would not have known 100% it was armour.
 * I think, by looking at the map data, as well as taking into account these stats, we can firmly say they do, for some reason, have armour, which is the first time since before Indev that a mob has received armour. however, this is naturally a bug, and it shall be noted as such on the templates of the zombie and zombie pigman page. --Kizzycocoa 12:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you assume it is a bug and not author's original intention? --mgr 12:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * because it affects the zombie, as well as zombie pigman. this means the base code of the Zombie was edited
 * so, why? why add armour to zombies who are only wearing ripped clothes? Pigmen, I could maybe understand. but zombies?
 * if so, why not to endermen or the enderdragon? or to cows due to their hide, or sheep due to their wool? why did they see fit to specifically add armour to zombies, which then applied to zombie pigmen? also, if it were just for extra health, why not just add health?
 * it's too strange to credit it as an intended move. the only proper resolution I can think is this is a bug of sorts. especially as it affects multiple mobs--Kizzycocoa 13:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OBJECTION!! (hehe, just joking)
 * According to Jeb's tweet it is definitely not a bug. Also, armor is present at least since 1.0.0. I'm reverting your edits, sorry. --mgr 15:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ............and why was this not brought up in the first place?! that would have proven, without a doubt, they had armour.
 * and, why of all things armour?! why was it not health?
 * well, the important thing I guess is that we've confirmed it's armour. why it's not health? hell if I goddamn know.
 * I want to restate, I stand by my actions. as an administrator, I cannot allow baseless "facts" to be added at a user's whim. imagine what could be added. you could, in theory, say the entire set of mobs had 1 health, and the rest was armour points.
 * thankfully, finally, we have a solid base, as well as showing it's not a bug.
 * also, you are wrong. it was not in 1.0.0. it only showed up in the pre-releases. Hence why the modders all said it was unchanged.


 * also, I see someone picked up on my comment earlier :P
 * the IP reminded me of that game. the whole issue was very theatrical, was it not? X3 so, I felt a need to say that. though, I've been told that was wrong, so I shan't do that in future.--Kizzycocoa 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...well, I found this tweet just now :)
 * If you ask my opinion, IP's arguments where strongly based on facts (see: his tests).
 * And I'm sure, that there was armor in 1.0.0 - I've tested it on 1.0.0. Why do you think I'm wrong? Is your option based on anything more than "modders say so"? --mgr 18:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a friend who is unable to play 1.1. I know 100% they are telling the truth. it only took 20 hits. --Kizzycocoa 21:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)