Talk: Mob

I have some question?

• Does Giant is a mob?

All mobs can be attacked and hurt (from falling, attacked by a player or another mob, falling into the void, hit by an arrow, etc), and have some form of voluntary movement. This is how the wiki say.
But is not true for giant. It just stands still and not do anything. It's have the same AI as armor stand. So why giant is considered a mob while armor stand is not?

• Why player is not considered a mob?

Player can be attack, hurt, move and have AI, so why player is not a mob?
-Brain180-^talk/_contr

"Mob" simply means "mobile entity". Giants are mobile. They can move when they respond to damage. Mobs are controlled by the game. Players are not. Amatulic (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Jockeys are not considered mobs

Chicken Jockeys, Spider Jockeys, Skeleton Horsemen and Killer Bunnys are listed on the hostile section of this page even though they are not mobs (no unique id or entity) but rather in-game phenomenons, so I'd like to remove the links (which can be accessed from the respective mob's page) since they actively mislead players into thinking them to be unique mobs... Uniimog (talk) 19:10 13 May 2022 (CEST)

It was proposed above in #New_"Jockey"_section? to move them to a separate section, which I'd still agree with. It is worth briefly mentioning the occurrence and behavior of jockeys as they spawn naturally, but they should not be treated like separate mobs as they are currently. –Sonicwave ^talk 04:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that'd be necessary since the links can already be found on the Mobs' Pages.. Still I'd be fine to change it that way but, according to this logic wouldn't we need entries for Hoglin Jockeys, Ravager Jockeys, and Strider Jockeys, and basically every Mob from Bedrock (for Babie Zombie Riders) as well? Uniimog (talk) 12:11 14 May 2022 (CEST)

Mob icon innovation

DISCLAIMER: This conversation was originally discussed at the Dolphin's Face's talk page. It has been recommended by an admin that the topic would be explained here as well. Please read with an open mind and give suggestions. Only constructive criticism please.

The Dolphin mob in Minecraft is composed of 8 primary cubes and 7 primary bones. 1 of those bones is tagged with the name "body". In this bone there is included the cube to which the Dolphin's face is textured on (aka it's head) and the ending of the Dolphin's torso. The tail is a completely separate bone and cube so judging by the real model it is safe to say that the Dolphin's head is much larger than the current face icon and that the current design does not do it any justice. Although the real head has been proven to be oversized for the mob faces in the page Mob, it does not mean that we should "improvise" to much on the design choice. Things like the Witch's hat, the Hoglin's hair, half of the Goat's beard, the list goes on. I am surprised at how the Warden's ears were (fankfully) included. So I propose a better system that might be extremely controversial but I think it might be worth trying. Now yes I know I should write this on the Mob talk page however I started writing here so just deal with it. I propose we instead of doing 2d faces that only fit one size in a small grid of images, we should instead use 3d pre-rendered isometric renders of only the mob's head. I think this will not only look better but also work extremely well no matter the size the renders will never look weird or out of "pixel size". I have here some examples of this: Of course the heads are not all the same size here but that is just for demonstration purposes. What do you people think? Is it a good idea? Should it be used or scrapped? Thank you. Witheremperor2006 (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Support Loved this idea, in my opinion they are much better looking and will even be consistent with pages like Blocks, which also use 3d pre-rendered isometric renders. Rogerio980Pizzaa (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Disagree I also support your proposed innovation. Though I do believe that the mob icons should all be the same size before you enact your proposal. Despite support your proposed innovation, I will remain firmly in opposition to you enacting your proposal, at least until the mob icons are all the same size. Drour1234 (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

They are supposed to be the exact same size. The images above are just for demonstration purposes. The size matter was about pixels in 2d icons. But they will all fit in a balanced grid. Thank you for the suggestions though. Witheremperor2006 (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Support In that case, as long as you do not make a mistake when you enact your proposed innovation, I will support it. Drour1234 (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

There is one big problem thought, the jockeys. How are you going to make an icon of them? Have a large rider's head and a small mount's head similar to the Chicken Jockey from Minecraft Dungeons? . Rogerio980Pizzaa (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I had 3 diffrent options of design for jockeys. 1 is the the one you mentioned. Other is having one mob head on top of another mob head and last but not least half of the head would be one mob and the other half would be the other mob. Up for debate though. Witheremperor2006 (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you do a icon of the second option (having one mob head on top of another mob head) for demonstration purposes. Rogerio980Pizzaa (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes here are some examples of what that design choice could look like. Totally up for debate. Witheremperor2006 (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The last one (Jockeyzombiechicken5.png) is the most suitable for a page. Rogerio980Pizzaa (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Comment While Im into concept of showing the mob heads in their true form, I don't think isometric view is fitting for the group list. How about keeping them facing front, but with all the head features? Take it as extension/imrovement of the current sprite style. Oakar567 (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

That is indeed a very interesting and exciting proposal. Again this is just a concept and I think we as a community should all debate this very well. The mob icons need to change no doubt, however the design you propose might work just fine as well. The only thing we should do better than the old design is manage to keep all the head's features without them looking deformed or out of the sprite's pixel size limit. Still, I am delighted by your idea. Much obliged. Witheremperor2006 (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

In the past I used 800% rule for mob faces. Basically scaled the mob texture by 800% and then aligned parts of the front side to form a final product. The pixels kept their squareness, and image was big enought to be true enought to actual in-game model. Oakar567 (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

So that is how the textures are made. I never trully understood why they looked a little off but I knew for sure that they were made using parts of the official testures. Still I think an innovation is needed. If you have any other suggestions please tell them since it is really important. Also quick question: Do you know how to open MC Dungeons mob models in blender, blockbench or anything else? The file extensions are ".psk". I ask because you made a lot of isometric renders and for this icon innovation, the same would apply to Minecraft Dungeons, Minecraft Hearth, maybe Minecraft Storymode and of course the upcomming Minecraft Legends. I await response. Again much obliged for the info and suggestions. Witheremperor2006 (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have the ability to open Dungeons models in Blender, heck, I mainly worked on previous renders in Blender, and currently trying to reproduce ancient overlay(the effect is more complex than it seems) for future use as template in standardized views). Oakar567 (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes I know you do, also ask Collector Allan if you know him. He uploaded the ancient royal guard named Vigilant Scounbdrel with the animated overlay. I wanted to know how you open them in blender or blockbench or even maya. Any 3d software I use says that the model is invalid. Do you convert ".psk" files to ".obj", ".json" or something else? Also here is how the 2 diffrent innovation propousals would look like using the witch as an example (a bit dark gotta make them lighter):

Yes, the front view should do the trick, just keep the original colors of the texture : D . As for importing the models, Im using the plugin, that I linked in the standardized views article (Getting started section). Oakar567 (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I personally prefer the isometric icons instead of the front view. Rogerio980Pizzaa (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Support As long as it will be used on Mobs pages only. On other pages, the faces should be using the EntirySprite or not all. --TreeIsLife (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

There are no plans to change such sprite. Only individual mob faces should be replaced and multiple designs are being made and all of it is up for debate. Witheremperor2006 (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Personally I'd much prefer Oakar's suggestion of keeping a 2D view with all layers, mostly because I think showing only a disembodied head looks jarring (especially for non-humanoid mobs), whereas showing a 2D face is much less so and still easily recognizable. –Sonicwave ^talk 21:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

That is the option we are trully thinking of however all layers must be included with no exceptions no matter the size it may occupy. Much obliged for the feedback. It is reallly important for this subject. Witheremperor2006 (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose. I agree with Sonicwave, an array of heads versus faces is creepy. If heads must be displayed, display them from the front, not as an isometric render. Otherwise, I prefer just displaying the face texture scaled up, as we are doing now. Amatulic (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow indeed very very creepy.Ya know it just scares the bejesus out of me. Anyway yes, most likely, we will not do 3D . However the 2D frankenstein textures that are used shall certainly be innovated. Much obliged. Witheremperor2006 (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I've been thinking - lets say, we render the models for face sprites, but I have some concerns with this particular method. While the renders will stay true to in-game model - texture pixel size inconsistency and overall image resolution are gonna be a problem with each new render made. One face will have texture pixel size of 6x6, the other 8x8, another even 6x7. We should either find a way to produce standardized workflow for every face or make the faces old-school way, but with more attention to detail and using actual models as reference. Oakar567 (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose per Amatulic. BDJP ^(t|c) 19:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for my ignorance but what is that supposed to mean? Witheremperor2006 (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Here, we are using "per" to mean "in accordance with." The sentence then becomes "Oppose in accordance with Amatulic."

BDJP is opposing the suggestion for the same reasons that Amatulic is opposing the suggestion. SLScool 00:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Much obliged! Witheremperor2006 (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Add a "Utility mob" section

I saw the archive when it was on Curse and it had a "utility mobs" section. I think it should be re-added into the page.--Softcode589 (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hostile Mob Vote

Will there be hostile mobs in the Minecraft mob voting? Because there’s only going to be 3 cute animals in Minecraft 2023 vote. Ever since after phantom won, only passive mobs won and It’s getting kind of boring now.

Boss mobs section

As of late, there's been a lot of revision to the category of "Boss mobs". The vague definition in the article plus people's ideas of what should be considered a boss gets in the way of keeping the group consistent. It disregards what mobs are officially deemed bosses. The category's usefulness is contentious, since all mobs that are "bosses" are Hostile already. Since Hostile matches their behavior, they should all be there. But then it looks weird since the bosses are listed twice. I presume this is why people are reverting that change. I'm beginning to think the Boss group being in the basic categories does more harm than good. I would suggest moving the boss mob designation to "Classification" or even its own heading. That way, it can be thoroughly explained by being separate from the Passive/Neutral/Hostile list. TavianCLirette (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)