Talk:Zombie

Archives

• 2010 - 2014

No mention of Zombie Sieges on the Zombie page

This seems rather odd. Here's a link to the Zombie Siege page: http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Zombie_siege –Preceding unsigned comment was added by WildBluntHickok (talk • contribs) at 04:18, 31 March 2015‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Hmm, you're right. Added. Anomie x (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Reinforcement spawn dependent on higher light level and villager presence

I found an nuance of reinforcement Zombie spawn behavior that doesn't seem to be fully documented on the wiki.

First, reinforcement Zombies spawn in light level 9 or lower instead of the normal 7 or lower. Second, suffocation and fire (sunlight) don't trigger reinforcements unless there is a villager in range (roughly 40 blocks). This is not siege related because I tested with a single villager and no doors.

The unfortunate consequence of this behavior is that if you have zombies spawn outside your base in the night, reinforcement zombies can spawn inside your base at sunrise in normally safe light levels of 8 and 9 if you have a villager anywhere near the outer wall, no player actions required.

To easily test this behavior you can use your favorite map tool to create a solid glowstone ceiling for a consistent light level , MCedit fill command for instance. You can change the ceiling height to vary ground level light level. Spawn zombies in center for testing, with player attack they spawn reinforcements around you only in light levels 9 and below. With environmental damage, such as sunlight, they spawn reinforcements only if a villager is nearby and only in light levels 9 and below.

TekSohpos (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not exactly "only if a villager is nearby": part of the reinforcement test is that either the calling zombie needs to have a current target entity or the damage is sourced from a living entity. The newly-spawned zombie will be set to target that entity. Anomie x (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Renders for new zombie villagers

BarracudaATA, Yetanotherguy, Majr, would one of you be able to create renders for the new zombie villager types? –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs 07:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Pikminrock2 and Gootube2000, I noticed you guys rendered the shulker mobs, would you be able to render the new zombie villager types? –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs 10:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do it, but I'm not too sure how to upload it once it's completed. --Gootube2000 (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

These can be cycled through in the infobox, and placed within the content, similar to what is currently done on the horse page. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs 05:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Although I'm not so sure how to handle the baby zombie villagers, scale-wise. --Gootube2000 (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

KnightMiner perhaps? –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs 12:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

With the renders I've made, they are either don't match in game angles perfectly (such as my skin render), or use Mineshot (which does not support 1.9 yet). I would just apply the new textures in 1.8, but zombie villagers also have a new model, making them more similar to the villager's model.

I might try throwing something together based off my skin model a little later (assuming no one else uploads before then), though the angles might be a bit off in the final product. –KnightMiner ^t/_c 14:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose we'll wait and see if any of the other users respond to this request in the meanwhile. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs 12:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Do Zombies prioritize Players over Villagers?

I had a test world called Villager AI with tests all aspects of the Villagers' Artificial Intelligence. In one of my tests, the Zombies when spawned will target the Player first, even when Villagers are closer to the Zombie than Players are. The environment of the test involved a platform with a bunch of Villagers on it with Zombie spawners on one side, and the Player in survival mode on Hard difficulty. In another test, when Zombies were attacking a Villager, sometimes, the stopped targeting the Villager and switched their focus to the Player. Could this suggest that Zombies will always attack the Player first, then target the Villagers? To do this yourself, 1. Make a superflat world with The Void preset and enable cheats. 2. Type the command: {/give <player> minecraft:mob_spawner} and place the spawners on one side of the platform and right click them with a Spawn Zombie egg. 3. Proceed to spawn Villagers on the platform and get into survival mode. 4. Use this command: {/time set 13500}. You might be able to notice the behavior of the Zombies and they will always attack you first. I have not observed cases where the Zombie attacks a Villager, but if you see this, please report it here on the talk page. BrenBanStudios (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

You can't report issues here. --65.23.255.61 13:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Zombies attack animals

I have recently seen zombies occasionally attack cows, chickens, sheep, pigs, horses, rabbit and even wolves if the zombie has not seen the player yet. This page has not even the slightest mention of it whatsoever. I am not sure when this feature was added to the game. Try it out for yourself. KAT IN A BOWL (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Not a feature present in vanilla. Disable any mods you have. That would be a serious issue and one that would have been widely known if it were in vanilla due to the repercussions it has. Skylinerw (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Flight capacity

Has anyone else encountered baby zombies with the ability to fly in 1.9? I ran into one on a multiplayer server just now. The server owner assures me that they aren't running any mods, but I can't understand why this would be a part of normal minecraft. Firebastard (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

No, but the part on baby zombies cannot be right, saying that they have the same as normal zombie HP.

That just isn't right.

I just fought a baby zombie vs regulars when I found a spawner and the baby had at LEAST 2x health.

After I killed a whole group of stacked up zombies in x number of hits, the baby survived. Then, another group spawned and joined the baby. I hit them all in x number of hits, THEN the baby dies.

What the **** is mojang doing with this?

104.238.32.44 13:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the NBT, I can't find any baby zombies that have any more health, or armor for that matter, than adult zombies. Maybe you were missing the baby zombie. Or hitting it with a weaker sword charge. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 16:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following is a closed discussion of a proposed merge. Please do not modify it. Any editors wishing to make further comments should start a new topic.

The result of the discussion was merge Husk with Zombie.

---

I propose that we merge the Husk page with the Zombie page, similar to how the Stray, Wither Skeleton, and Skeleton pages are under question for being merged. We already have Zombies, Zombie Villagers, and Chicken Jockeys all on this page. They share many similarities, and the Husk already has a small section on this page. -PancakeMan77 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I
 Support this too. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 20:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 Support Anomie x (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 Support. -BDJP ^(t|c) 22:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 Support. –LauraFi - talk 02:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems as if we have enough support. Can someone with more knowledge on the process of merging pages do it? Or do you just copy/paste the info into the Zombie page? -PancakeMan77 (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

 Agreed. I have some plans regarding zombie pigmen, which are in nature the same zombies, just being apparently pigmen in the past. — NickTheRed37 (issues’ wall) 16:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Zombie Pigmen are IMO very different. Even Wither Skeletons are close to being different enough. Anomie x (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I think putting Husks on the zombie page introduces very few places where we have to say "zombies do such and such ... except for husks". Whereas putting zombie pigmen in the page, it would be such a profusion of exceptions, their state and behaviors are so different, I think it makes sense to leave them separated. If you care to show a sandbox mockup of how it could be otherwise, I'm open to that of course. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 21:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

 Support I agree with not putting pigment on the same page. They are so different from zombies and are not the same mob, whereas in the code Husks are the same mob as zombies, just with a different tag. 131.109.7.222 18:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I have changed my mind, due to a discussion under the Nether Bricks talk page. It is saying we shouldn't merge pages until the full release, because new features might have more behaviors implemented/discovered. -PancakeMan77 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

OTOH, after seeing how people have been duplicating more and more of the zombie information to husk, I'm more firm in my belief that these should be merged. Anomie x (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

 Agree All we need to do is note that in deserts, zombies have an 80% chance of spawning as a husk (if they are exposed to the sky) and that husks don't burn in the sunlight. The Blobs 03:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Zombie villager skins

I have noticed that on the main zombie pictures, the old zombie villager skin (removed in 1.9 snapshot 15w35a) is still shown, even though the new ones are also shown. I thought that it was procedure that outdated material be deleted and moved to the History section, so I think these textures should be removed, except for a picture in the gallery with a caption explicitly stating that the texture in the picture is outdated, and is not found in-game anymore. 131.109.7.222 12:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe they're still current in the console edition. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 13:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me check that, you might be right. I forgot about the other editions. 131.109.7.222 16:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I just checked, that skin is current in console edition. Case closed, that skin will stay. 131.109.7.222 17:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way that we can note that they are only in Console Edition? -PancakeMan77 (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm on it TinyGenius (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Baby zombie runs away and hides?

I had just destroyed a zombie dungeon in a cave and found a baby zombie, which didn't attack me. It stared at me for maybe 10 seconds and then ran away. I followed it, and found it cowering in a corner with its arms over its head. Can anybody tell me what is up with that?!

Disable any mods you have and try again.--SamGamgee55 (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably a Mod, But: Rarely, a Zombie WON'T attack (as in like 1 /150 or-so very roughly, Zombies); this may be more common when in-Combat with multiple-other Zombies, around. Sometimes, they'll - if they forgot to attack in the first place - Wander around, for up-to around a min. or-so.

But that's different from forgetting-to keep-attack(ing which I'm pretty sure they don't, ever). Znyway, it's possible that Zombie Babies' version of this is that since they Run-everywhere (or Sprint), they'll Sprint-Wander.

As for what's up with the "arms over its head"? I've never heard of a Mob protest. Yilante 7 /6 /18 11:00 pm 108.215.209.201 06:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Zombie variants from spawners

The zombie siege page says that zombie villagers and husks are never spawned as part of a siege. I'm guessing this holds also for spawners in (naturally generated) dungeons, even if a dungeon is located in a desert biome and exposed to the sky. Can someone confirm this? I've never seen a zombie villager spawned from a spawner in a dungeon. In Creative, zombies, zombie villagers and husks have their own eggs that can be placed into a spawner to generate those types. Kumiponi (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I often use zombie spawners specifically to get zombie villagers, so they do indeed spawn from a spawners. It might have changed in the last version or two, but I don't think so. I'm not sure about the husks, but it's an interesting question. 86.82.30.109 16:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I conducted a test just now with a dungeon directly below a desert, allowing over 100 zombies to spawn, and only regular zombies spawned. That eliminates the possibility of husks spawning from spawners, but zombie villagers could be possible if I happened to have extremely bad luck.--Corner g (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Was it a naturally-generated spawner or did it come from commands/creative inventory? There might be a difference. 86.82.30.109 17:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It was natural; I generated a custom desert-only world (not superflat), and searched for a zombie dungeon. I made sure the area was considered desert on the debug screen (in case a river may have been running above), and no husks or zombie villagers appeared from it in the 100 it spawned. If someone feels inclined, they could locate a zombie spawner under a desert in a purely regular world, but I don't believe it would effect the spawner.--Corner g (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It used to in the past, this changed when entity IDs were split. --Pepijn (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

"In desert biomes, all zombies exposed to the sky will have an 80% chance to be replaced by husks." Depending on Version, Same /Different are Strays of Skeletons (If: ".. ice plains, ice mountains, ice plains spikes, frozen river, cold beach[Bedrock Edition only] , frozen ocean, and deep frozen ocean biomes will be strays. Strays will not spawn from naturally spawned monster spawners, even when exposed to direct sky[Java and Legacy Console editions only]." ) . Yilante 7 /6 /18 11:05 pm 108.215.209.201 06:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Split Zombie Villager to a new article?

Hello. I think the article Zombie Villager should be splitted into a single article instead of a redirect to Zombie. --Philip57sundfors (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

By what reasoning? Some time ago they were purposely merged, and their function is so similar that I personally see no reason for another split. – Jack McKalling [ ] 14:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Really, at this point I can only point to two distinctly-different features of Zombie Villagers as opposed to regular-looking Zombies. The old reason was Curing them (back, even) into Villagers (their Trades might-even be specific to the individual) - which is Now, Easier, due to increase in Gold-availability with Mesas becoming essentially Gold Biomes - in a recent Update; and Ocean Monuments' (the original fall-back, for this extra Gold, source) now with 1.3 Aquatic Update being potentially easier-to Conquer: using the Tridents, and /or other new - on separate items, even from Tridents, in-addition - Enchant(ment)s.

The other 1.3 Aquatic Update-related Change, would be that these are now the lone Zombie type (other than Z Pigs) which don't-Convert into Drowned. They even just get Stuck on the Water's bottom, inertly (though I think Skeletons and /or other Undead, Also get-Stuck, this way, too). Yilante 7 /6 /18 10:50 pm 108.215.209.201 05:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge Drowned to this page as a section, like the other variants.

Why is it even a separate page? ― CanOfHuskiesᵗᶜ 18:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Zombie Villager curing?

Today I cured some zombie villagers, but instead of the process taking a few minutes like the article stated, the process was instant. Was this changed in an update somewhere, or is this exclusive to my version (Java Edition, on a server running 1.11)? 107.77.211.37 04:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hm, this is weird. Looking at the code, I can confirm what the wiki says (EntityZombieVillager.processInteract after checking for a golden apple uses this.startConverting(player.getUniqueID(), this.rand.nextInt(2401) + 3600);, where the conversion time is in ticks but may go slightly faster with beds/iron bars). But anecdotally I've had it also convert nearly instantly, and I can think of cases where this happened a while back. So that's odd... also I can't find any bug reports (search gives nothing super useful). --Pokechu22 (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

They were all underground in an unlit area, grouped with some zombies. One was alone, while two were cured together. The lone one was a cleric, while the other two were nitwits. All three were cured instantaneously. I'm unmodded, there were no iron bars or beds close by, and it was only a regular splash potion and an unenchanted golden apple each time. I hope this information helps somehow. 107.77.211.37 06:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Split Zombie variants off from this article

I propose that this article should only be about the regular (blue) zombie, with the other zombie variants (Zombie villager, Husk, Drowned) getting their own pages. To have an overview, a new page like Zombie (disambiguation) could be created (like the page on the German wiki: de:Zombie (Begriffsklärung)). Baby zombie variants would be part of their respective articles.

This article currently is a horrible mess of way too many different entities with way too many properties, so it is difficult to find facts about one specific Zombie variant.

Besides, from a technical point of view, all the zombie variants are different entities now. They all got their own IDs (except the Baby variant and the profession of a Zombie villager, those are saved in NBT).

To clarify what I mean, this should be the pages that exist after the split:

• Zombie (disambiguation) – Overview
• Zombie – Regular, blue, zombie
• Zombie Villager
• Husk
• Drowned

Smaller articles are better for readers, as they don't need to read through that much anymore when they want to find a specific piece of information. | violine1101^(Talk) 22:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

 Support -EatingSilencerforBreakfast (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

 Support --Pokechu22 (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

 Support Scimiguy (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

 Support That would clearly be more useful. JSBM (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

 Support Smaller articles are better as long as they have enough unique info (which is the case here). Same should be done for skeleton probably (split strays)--Pepijn (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

 Support. Skeleton should definitely be split. - Cherryblossom000 (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

 Supported. Similarly, perhaps the merge notices on some of the raw and cooked food articles (such as Raw Chicken and Cooked Chicken) should be removed, since the items have different information and the notices have been there for over a year with no action taken (the last discussion was here). -Sonicwave ^talk 04:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed all the merge templates with discussions which have been archived by now, seeing as nothing has been done there for over a year (in case of some, even over two years). If someone wants to bring the topic up again, they should start a new discussion, it makes no sense to revive a discussion from two years ago. | violine1101^(Talk) 10:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

 Support I would the pages could be splitted to separate pages. psl85 (profile | talk | contribs | send email) 05:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I will now experiment with the split and the disamig page in my sandbox, and also planned to split skeleton and stray to separate pages, I will do it in my sandbox - psl85 (profile | talk | contribs | send email) 10:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

 Support. On a side note, we should probably split the Fish (food) page as well. It's getting a bit cluttered and is currently covering lots of items. I've never really understood what's so beneficial about merging a ton of articles into one.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 12:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear god, just checked it for the first time in a while and you're totally right. What a big clutter. --Pepijn (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, there's already a discussion about splitting the Fish food page here, for anybody who wants to join.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 12:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

 Support. This article is very cluttered. - Cherryblossom000 (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

 Support. -BDJP ^(t|c) 12:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

 Support. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 12:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

 Support - I'd personally also split up Fish (mob) and Horse as well, but that's a different discussion. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Since this proposal has had total support so far, would it be alright to act on it at this point in time? -EatingSilencerforBreakfast (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd say go for it, but still leave the discussion open just in case there are other people who want to comment.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 18:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The pages have now been splitted, can I create a disambiguation page (title Zombie (disambiguation)) instead of about template at the top, psl85 (profile | talk | contribs | send email) 07:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Post split

I personally
 Oppose the split as I had said before on Talk:Drowned#Merging with Zombie article. Would have been nice to have been given more than 2 days to respond, but whatever.

My main reasoning is Zombie and Zombie Villager have practically the same content as zombie villagers share so much zombie behavior. Honestly the only difference between the two is zombie villagers can spawn from villagers being attacked and can be cured. Basically, while its easier to find Zombie Villager behavior in general now, its so much harder to find what is different between the two as you have to manually compare the two articles.

Husks are basically the opposite right now, their article actually forgoes describing most of their behavior in favor of just saying how they are different from zombies, which raises the question of if it really had enough content if its entire identity is wrapped in the zombie.

Also, it has been said before that internal IDs are no reason to split or merge. Terracotta was merged despite having one variant stained and the other not. –KnightMiner ^t/_c 20:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's the thing though, take it from the reader's perspective. Is the old zombie article whats best for the reader, or is having them split make it easier to read?-EatingSilencerforBreakfast (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Will write new reply. -EatingSilencerforBreakfast (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that the zombie article was merged under the consensus that their too similar to be split up. I'll ask you this, if you, Knightminer (talk • contribs • logs • block log) don't like the split, then what solution do you propose?

For starters, there is nothing wrong with having multiple articles that have similar (not the same) content. You say that husks and zombie villagers don't have enough differences, but then how do you explain the spider and cave spider? Their more or less the same scenario. -EatingSilencerforBreakfast (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Both spider types have completely unique spawning and their behavior section is a few small paragraphs. Zombie villagers spawn randomly instead of a zombie in all cases where a zombie spawns, and zombies have 8 sections of behavior which is copied word for word to zombie villager (sometimes forgetting to add "villager" when referencing the mob).

Its pretty obvious that I proposed not splitting. Thats basically what I said (though since its post split now, thats merging back together). We can highlight the one difference of the villagers in their spawning and the one curing behavior easily as was done before. –KnightMiner ^t/_c 21:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

As said, there's nothing inherently wrong with similar content as long as it's not extreme. This is of course an arbitrary line and will always be just that. But in the end, the goal is to present information to the user as best as possible. And most of the time, merging goes against this. Merging articles with an exception here, another exception there, some more around here is nice for condensing ALL information but that's NOT the goal of the wiki. Users usually read an article because they want to look up something specific and merging articles makes that more annoying because you have to sift through more information you do not care about. --Pepijn (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd argue in this case it is extreme. Its not similar content, the two articles have the exact same content, especially in the biggest behavior section where the villager variant just adds curing and the occasional "villager". Honestly, I think the user is a lot more benefitted saying, "Sometimes zombies spawn as a villager, which can be cured" than giving a second article with the same information just because it looks different. So in this case, if a user is specifically looking up zombie villagers, they get the exact same information whether it is merged with zombie or not; its just one says the word "villager" more. This "information you don't care about" still exists on the split article as its all relevant to the villager variant still, and the unique villager information is not enough to make the zombie article harder to read as its still on there. –KnightMiner ^t/_c 21:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Since I've seen people complain about it, then I'd say that it does in fact make the article harder to read. -EatingSilencerforBreakfast (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

 Support. --Angrydog001 (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)