MCPE-45531Ravager Has A Very Small Hitbox
The new ravagers have a very weird hitbox, that makes it harder to hit them, and also makes it so they can stand in lava without taking damage. See images below:
Linked Issues
Created Issue:
Ravager Has A Weird Hitbox
The new ravagers have a very weird hitbox, that makes it harder to hit them, and also makes it so they can stand in lava without taking damage. See images below:
Attachments3
![[Mojang] Mega_Spud (Jay Wells)](../../../data/avatars/users/92696.png){kind=small}
![[Mod] GoldenHelmet](../../../data/avatars/users/18951.svg){kind=small}
blocks
Ravager Has AWeirdHitboxRavager Has A Very Small Hitbox
![[MCQA] v-weszaj](../../../data/avatars/users/18941.svg){kind=small}
That's something that i should add to the related report talking about Ravager's having a bad attack reach actually, the delayed attack and slower movement is what makes everything feel so weird
Ok, i tested something here, i edited Ravager's behavior and fixed some parity issues of the mob! They being slower and something that i noticed just recently, Ravager attacks are delayed and that's not the case in Java! By fixing those two things the Ravager behaves perfectly similar to Java! So i actually think that a smaller collision box is actually intended
![[Mod] OcelotOnesie](../../../data/avatars/users/43220.png){kind=small}
I believe the too-short attack reach for ravagers would be fixed entirely by fixing the too-short collision box for ravagers (MCPE-45531) and the too-slow speed (MCPE-48145). The video below shows ravagers with movement speed and collision box changed to match Java (0.4 speed and 1.95 x 2.2
collision).
Ravager attack with fixed collision box and speed.mp4
However, if you set the attack range multiplier to 2.5 as suggested by the comment above then ravagers can hit 5 blocks away from where they stand (i.e. a ravager standing on a floating block can hit a villager standing on a floating block with 4 air blocks in-between), which is far beyond the visual reach of their head.
This issue appears to be caused by more fundamental issues:
MCPE-91147MCPE-45531(which causesMCPE-60680)MCPE-48145MCPE-136616(i.e. iron golems giving too much vertical knockback to begin with)
When I use a behavior pack to fix MCPE-45531 and MCPE-48145 (making the Ravager collision and speed match Java), then the ravager is always able to bite the iron golem once before the iron golem retaliates. However, due to MCPE-91147 and MCPE-136616 the iron golem then always hits the ravager 3 times in the air before it lands.
If you fix ravager's speed (MCPE-48145) and collision box (MCPE-45531) to match Java then this issue does not occur.
Doesn't it make sense that the damage is given as the bite closes? It sounds like the bug is in Java.
About it being easy to dodge, that seems just as much a result of MCPE-60680 and MCPE-48145, as what is described here. Due to 60680 (really MCPE-45531) the attack reach does not match the animation, so you have to be inside of its head to take damage.
This was fixed in 1.19.40 by the fix to MCPE-45531, and to a lesser extent MCPE-48145.
As can be seen from the video I've attached below that the ravager have a shorter reach than to Bedrock Edition.
This should be a valid parity issue, because ravagers attack reach, hitbox and movement speed were changed in Bedrock 1.19.40. (MCPE-60680, MCPE-45531 and MCPE-48145)
It appears that the shadow on where the hitbox is placed is smaller than the mob itself. The small shadow is probably related to
MC-138766where some mobs has small shadows.Hitbox extends past the shadow on the front side, just not on the backside
I’ve noticed this when fighting a raid, and I snuck behind the ravaged to hit him, accidentally hitting his legs, and it did no damage.
@silentwisperer I also notice that if you put a ravager in a 4x4 fence and push them near the sides of the fence, the backside of the ravager will clip through.
Fixed in 1.13.0.1 beta
Affects 1.16.40 Hotfix.
Affects 1.16.100.55 Beta.
Affects 1.16.100.58 Beta.
Even Hoglins
The ravager in Bedrock Edition this collision box:
"minecraft:collision_box": { "height": 1.9, "width": 1.2 },The collision box in Java, on the other hand, is height 2.2, width 1.95.
If I had to guess, I would surmise that the Bedrock collision box was set based on
The Java width of 1.95 is a much better balance between the ravager's literal "width" and length. With a 1.95 game width you can bump ravagers from the side without quite touching them visually. That may seem like bug, but its negative impact is more than compensated for by the positive impact of a more accurate collision font-to-back. Moreover, giving ravagers a 1.95 width fixes their visual attack reach extending farther than their actual ability to hit (
MCPE-60680).Affects 1.17.40.20
I believe this links to my report (
MCPE-142171) where the ravager's hitbox allow them to basically float at the very edge of a water streamThe behavior in
MCPE-142171indeed does not occur if both this issue andMCPE-48145are fixed.Affects 1.18.10
Affects Beta 1.18.20.27
Reply from [Mod] GoldenHelmet: there is no need to report beta versions if the latest release version is already reported or shown on the ticket.
The ravager actually has a hit box about the same size as on Java (1.95 x 2.2) or possibly a little wider (2.2 x 2.2) but it has a smaller collision box of 1.2 x 1.9, which makes its shadow smaller and allows it to clip into blocks visually. This also allows it to take damage from lava or cactus inside a wall that it stands next to, which is odd.
The diverse hit and collision sizes is similar to the hoglin, but the while the hoglin has a data-driven custom_hit_test for its hitbox, the ravager's hitbox is hard-coded. Since the custom_hit_test component was exposed for the hoglin, I don't see why it should remain hard-coded for the ravager.
Probably they did that to help with pathfinding since it's more difficult for big mobs to move around, the recently added Warden also has a thin collision box(2.9x0.8) which allows it to move more efficiently but differs quite a lot from Java in relation to reach
Affects Beta 1.18.30.26 and Preview 1.18.30.27
Reply from [Mod] GoldenHelmet: we don't need to add beta versions when the bug affects the current release and no fix has been announced.