Talk:TNT

Not sure mining with TNT is really abuse, I mean, its actually realistic, and gunpowder is a rarer to obtain than stone, and even iron. Assuming wood and sand are both readily available (which if replanting and not building large glass structures, they should be), and assuming you dig 2 blocks deep before planting the TNT to maximise it, you get 5 blocks removed per unit of black powder, while you get <22 per block of stone, which is the more available resource anyway ('scuse the redundancy, did the maths in my head anyway, and thought I'd record it.) You also will collect stone whilst mining out the hall to replace that used. --The Sero 16:18, 30 August 2010 (PDT)


 * TNT mining is kind of dumb to do, cause you blow up any ore thats in its way.Toadbert


 * The whole part about destroying the ore in the way is a big problem, but it could be useful for clearing large chunks of less valuable blocks (gravel, dirt, etc.) But yeah, not good for mining for things you actually want. -Lunar180 17:18, 27 September 2010 (PST)

Mining with TNT
I added a small section about mining with TNT, and which ores will and won't be destroyed. It needs more experimentation, though, so feel free to add to or correct it. After more tests I found that my earlier theory didn't hold up, as gold ore and iron ore can also occasionally be found in the debris. LTK 70 00:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing more tests on the percentage of blocks destroyed by an explosion. I demolished a 3x3x3 block of iron ore with TNT in the middle ten times, and on average I got 32.3% blocks back, the highest being 14 and the lowest being 5 out of 26. I will see if this average also counts for other block types, but for now it seems that the destruction rate of blocks is about 1/3 on average. It would be most helpful if others experimented on this as well. LTK 70 17:19, 21 October 2010 (CDT)

Blocks' TNT resistance
Someone should try to get the strength of special blocks (fences, doors, etc.). I'm going to try to test the strength of furnaces and crafting tables. :D PurpleKiwi 06:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I just tested the crafting table, furnace, wooden door, and sapling. I can't really test out saplings since it can only be put on soil (and breaks if the soil breaks). PurpleKiwi 07:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Risugami, a modder, has made a chart of the real resistance values used in the game's code, and give a small explanation of how they're used. What we need now, is to know what the 'damage' value of TNT is, in regards to this temporary health, and Creepers too, since their explosions are weaker, and how the damage dissipates with distance. Also, blowing up obsidian with TNT is fun. CyborgDragon 20:50, 24 October 2010 (CDT)
 * How much TNT do you need to destroy Obsidian? PurpleKiwi 22:56, 24 October 2010 (CDT)
 * Not sure of the exact amount, I placed a hollow 3x3 tower, up to ground level, of TNT on top of the obsidian, then used redstone to activate as much as possible at once. Sure enough about 4 blocks of obsidian were vaporized. CyborgDragon 07:26, 25 October 2010 (CDT)
 * The damage of TNT is at least 37.5 (it goes through a bookshelf and then destroys a block of stone), with an upper bound (assuming that damage doesn't fall off because of distance) of 42.5 (it goes through a chest, but then can't break the stone behind it). As damage does seem to fall off over distance, that upper bound is invalid, but if we can figure out how damage falls off with distance, we could use that to obtain a better figure.  Calfuris 22:23, 29 October 2010 (CDT)
 * I wonder how you'd test Creeper explosions... Imagining it makes me laugh. Creepers can't destroy furnaces. A creeper destroyed the top part of my underground mini-base, but it couldn't penetrate the furnace-lined basement. Now I use furnaces as building material.PurpleKiwi! 03:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

So... in theory... One can destroy bedrock with unobtainable amounts of TNT?


 * The TNT resistance is very confusing, does this mean 6000 blocks of obsidian will be blown up by tnt? Flowers are impervious to tnt cause they have 0?Toadbert


 * This is because the term resistance is being defined two different and completely opposite ways. I've tried to make it clearer but some of the block pages need updating.  See my posts on this page under "Theory on TNT resisitance weirdness".  --XipXoom 23:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this really a bug?
I think that the fact that you can use the TNT to make an arrow cannon may be intentional, should this be moved to a trivia section? Oa10712 18:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Theory on TNT resisitance weirdness
Notch probably didnt want his work to be tampered with in any way, which may have been one of the reasons (the following is quite likely) he converted down to java, to make it hard to work with. The resistances are probably based on exponents or have some trick math hidden in there.

maybe the server was modded, but ive been a dozen tnt blow up a good amount of admium. A box of it was build around me, of unknow size.
 * Please sign your posts with ~ at the end. It sounds like the server was modded.  There is no 'converting down to java'.  Its the native language the game is programmed in.  Also the code is run through an automatic obfuscation program.  He doesn't need to do any 'tricky math' or the like to hide things further.  That said, its relatively simple to reverse engineer the data.  Frankly, and I'm not trying to be confrontational or demeaning here, I'm more willing to believe the data people have pulled from the internal tables is right over your experiences on someone's server destroying bedrock (which is supposed to be indestructible). --XipXoom 10:27, 13 November 2010 (CST)


 * I've edited the tables to use the term "Temporary Health" instead of "Resistance". The way the term resistance was used on this page and the ones in the block property pages were mutually exclusive and appearing to confuse people.  For instance, depending on which definition you used, a single block of TNT would either destroy 30 cobblestone placed next to it or just one. Furthermore the TNT resistance on some of the block pages needs to be redone as they're using health values instead of resistance (see the obsidian page).  --XipXoom 10:38, 13 November 2010 (CST)

Sorting TNT resistance table
I just sorted the TNT resistance table by the resistance value, since it didn't seem to be in any particular useful order already. This is the Perl program I used on the wikitext to get the rough sorted order before adding the column breaks:

—KPReid 09:12, 16 November 2010 (CST)

"Stationary Water/Lava"?
Does this mean the SOURCE BLOCK? 99seconds 23:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional note to 3x3 closed air tnt explosion,
if you put a 1 block air space between the tnt and the surface wall, the explosion damage is increased by 2 blocks deep. can anyone else confirm this?

Drift Mining and Appeal to Admins
Perhaps there should be a discussion rather than constant edits. Why is drift mining not being permitted to remain on the page? Much like regular exploratory mining, drift mining is just an efficient type of mining. I have read in the past that these pages do not exist because 'they should be common sense' which seems like a silly argument. The wiki is meant for new players, not old ones. There SHOULD be basic information on a wiki. That's why it exists. The way the wiki is run now seems more like an exercise in stroking the admins' egos. One rule after another is made without any discussion among the community that actually uses the wiki. Sure, there have ben a lot of crappy videos added to pages, but they generally get removed! The entire point of wikis is that they are self-policing and that anyone can edit them, not that a few moderators have to do everything.

I vote let drift mining stay. It was a new concept to me, and I had to google a forum thread to learn more about it. If you really want the wiki to reflect the knowledge base of the community, let the community add knowledge. --JohnnyMadhouse 17:14, 25 December 2010 (CST)
 * If we allow articles like this we're pretty much opening a door to all other kind of "techniques" that are really just lame attempts at becoming popular. For example, Quatromining, Doublemining, Speedymining, Slowmining, Craftmining, Partnermining, Familymining, Oremining, Fishmining (???), etc. etc. etc.--Quatroking - Garble Garble! 18:28, 25 December 2010 (CST)
 * No matter the name, if the technique is useful/effective it should be mentioned. Drift Mining might not be the technically correct term, but it is an effective mining technique involving TNT usage. And it's funny to hear that wiki on a game called Minecraft should not include information on different mining techniques. Slider2k 20:22, 25 December 2010 (CST)


 * Why not have an article devoted to specialty mining techniques? Title it 'Mining' or something similar and let it fill the same function as the Megaproject page on the Dwarf Fortress wiki. People can add their own special versions of mining to the page, the word 'Mining' can be linked to it, and everyone can be satisfied. There are already mining tutorials in place, but the tutorials pages are somewhat difficult to find despite being linked to on the front page. A mining page would offer the oppourtunity for SCIENCE about the efficiency of drift mining and branch tunneling and the depth of various minerals all on one page, and may offer insights to new players that they would otherwise need to read the forums for. I think it's totally okay to have some redundant information on the wiki: after all, having the information in only one place results in people not finding it, asking about it, and then often being rudely directed to it by someone who has played the game a lot longer.


 * EDIT Re: people trying to become popular by posting new types of mining. I don't think that will be an issue. If a technique is crappy, it will get removed. If a technique is good and the editor who posts it names it after themselves, it will rapidly acquire a more generic name like 'drift mining'. Most things have a way of working themselves out. The embark profiles page on the dwarf fortress wiki used to include users names, but has shifted towards description of the gimmicks and handicaps involved. Honestly, the name of something doesn't matter to me as long as it works. I'm not going to start a new game hoping to use MINECRAFTFAN24's ABYSSALTREE SUPERBRANCHTUNNELING METHOD. I'll start it and dig in 1x2 tunnels without that name ever crossing my mind. --JohnnyMadhouse 21:56, 25 December 2010 (CST)


 * Good to hear your concerns, JohnnyMadhouse. The wiki is supposed to be a universal knowledge repository. Why some relevant knowledge is discarded or should be discarded is beyond me. It is frustrating to see your contributes being deleted without explanation. The role of admins is to help categorize and organize knowledge - not to discard it. Slider2k 20:22, 25 December 2010 (CST)
 * Part of their roles is also to enforce the rules. If you don't like the rules, then try to get the community to change them. Also, a lot of categorizing and organizing is deleting things that are in the wrong places. Oh, and there is a place for your ideas (if they're good/unique enough), and that's under Tutorials, particularly Tutorials/Mining_Techniques --JonTheMon 00:27, 27 December 2010 (CST)
 * The problem with that being that the admins make the rules and ban anyone who changes them! The community is trying to change the rules, but they are running into a brick wall composed of adminium! --JohnnyMadhouse 03:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ban anyone who's changing them, or banning those who break the current rules (you can't just act on a new ruleset before it's accepted by the community). If you can muster enough support on Talk:Wiki Rules, you can get them changed. But it's not gonna happen overnight, you'll need some patience and persistence. --JonTheMon 05:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Admins, please stop edit war and start discussion WP:3RR. Now the recent history of TNT is totally a mess. Xfs 03:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't wikipedia. --JonTheMon 21:35, 27 December 2010 (CST)
 * This is a common sense that any logical person would conclude. Edit summary is not the place for discussion. Xfs 22:18, 27 December 2010 (CST)