Uploaded image for project: 'Minecraft: Java Edition'
  1. Minecraft: Java Edition
  2. MC-235759

Ores have lower blast resistances than stone, despite taking longer to mine or even requiring higher tools

XMLWordPrintable

    • Icon: Bug Bug
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • None
    • 1.17.1, 1.19.3, 1.19.4 Pre-release 2, 1.19.4, 23w14a
    • None
    • Community Consensus
    • Block states

      The Bug:

      Ores have lower blast resistances than stone, despite taking longer to mine or even requiring higher tools.

      Steps to Reproduce:

      • Summon a large block of stone and diamond ores.
      • /fill ~1 ~ ~1 ~9 ~5 ~9 minecraft:diamond_ore
        /fill ~-1 ~ ~-1 ~-9 ~5 ~-9 minecraft:stone
        
      • Place some TNT on top and in the center of the two big blocks of stone and diamond ores. See setup.png
      • Ignite both blocks of TNT.
        → Notice how more of the diamond ores are destroyed compared to the stone, therefore indicating that ores have lower blast resistances than stone, despite taking longer to mine or even requiring higher tools.

      Expected Behavior:

      The expected behavior would be that ores would have higher or equal blast resistances compared to stone, as they take longer to mine.

      Original Description

      When mining an ore block, it becomes obvious that they take noticably longer to mine with any pickaxe than normal stone would. In addition, several ores require high-tier pickaxes to be properly mined at all.

      This increased hardness, however, is paradoxically not reflected when it comes to explosions. In the image examples, TNT is blown up on cubes of stone, coal ore and diamond ore, and contrary to what would be expected from mining them directly, much larger craters were left in the ores than were left in raw stone. It would be expected that ores would have higher blast resistances than stone, resulting in smaller craters, to reflect their increased mining toughness.

      I'm aware this has been the case in game for over a decade, but it still seems off, and contradicts more modern changes such as MC-94013.

        1. 2021-09-01_21.24.01.png
          2021-09-01_21.24.01.png
          454 kB
        2. 2021-09-01_21.24.19.png
          2021-09-01_21.24.19.png
          544 kB
        3. 2021-09-01_21.25.30.png
          2021-09-01_21.25.30.png
          261 kB
        4. 2021-09-23_18.59.31.png
          2021-09-23_18.59.31.png
          153 kB
        5. 2021-09-23_18.59.33.png
          2021-09-23_18.59.33.png
          112 kB
        6. MC-235759.png
          MC-235759.png
          1.40 MB
        7. setup.png
          setup.png
          1.99 MB

            Unassigned Unassigned
            Awesoman3000 Connor Steppie
            Votes:
            7 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            4 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              CHK: