Bravewind

Confirmed in 1.15-pre1, 1.15 base (1.15.0), 1.15 randomly throughout, and in 1.16 snapshots

Issue Not Resolved

Confirmed, despite claiming resolution, in 1.15-pre1, 1.15 base (1.15.0), randomly throughout 1.15 versions, and in 1.16 snapshots

Confirmed in 1.15 versions randomly including base (1.15.0)

Confirmed in 1.13-pre3 (asked)

1.14.1

and 1.15 versions at random inclusing base (1.15.0)

Confirmed in 1.14 and 1.15 versions at random and base (1.14.0, 1.15.0)

To whom is reading this, this issue MC-155162 is still active, awaiting another staff member to reopen it as the resolution was premature and is invalid. It has been retested and confirmed in the original version, Base version 1.14 (1.14.0), randomly in the latest versions since, and in the current version. Any professional courtesy for another set of eyes to look this over and give it proper consideration and vetting would be appreciated.

This message was not auto-generated

• Reference to Michael Wobst comment 7th february

Confirmed in both mentioned, higher randomtickspeed than default makes it worse, but lower than default doesn't help

Can also confirm in 1.14.x client 1.14.x server (in addition to 1.13.2 client)

Can deny it was the / a server's issue, as doesn't happen in 1.13.2 client 1.13.2 server on the same server, same conditions, multiple users testing in every case

To whom is reading this, this issue MC-153997 is still active, awaiting another staff member to reopen it as the resolution was premature and is invalid. It has been retested and confirmed in the original version, each additionally stated version, randomly in the latest versions since, and in the current version. Any professional courtesy for another set of eyes to look this over and give it proper consideration and vetting would be appreciated.

This message was not auto-generated

I have checked with the latest 1.14.4, and it persists. Unfortunately I am now without computer access and cannot check 1.15.x/1.15-PreX anything for quite some time

Drowned with and without trident spawn in water. Step into water and they become hostile. Step out, and only without tridents pacify. Tridents still attack. Daytime only, as nighttime both with and without stay hostile. Yes?

They did that, and it lasted until 1.14.2, but by 1.14.3 it was patched and made impossible by normal (non-specific command) methods such as survival and creative. 14.2 yes, 14.3 no, 14.4 bug, as well as those were different enchantments stacked, this is the same one stacked, if only at different levels. I don't know what caused it but crossbows have been bug ridden since creation

Screenshots are from Xisumavoid's YouTube channel, Hermitcraft 6 Episode 837, however I have tested this myself under the same circumstances and additional circumstances, and while it takes time to replicate, it does happen. 

Confirm in 1.14.4pre1,2 as of changelogs, confirm current versions with additional proof via MC-155876

@Sbeven E

As said in the issue, I had every volume in the game, as well as (not said) my computer volume loud enough to hear everything else perfectly fine. The problem was the items didn't think they were dropping, and the sound wasn't playing at all. 

I would like to withdraw my bug report on account of a (previously unknown to me) malfunctional plugin that manipulated the dropping, collection, and dropless collection of cake having unknown side effects on other items dropping. Resolve how you see fit based on this, the bug was not a result of vanilla minecraft code.

I have put a detailed description of what the issue is in the description section of the issue. I review the guidelines and template of an issue each time before creating and reporting one. The issue, restated in an incompletely short summary, is that baby mobs such as zombie and chicken, as well as full size mobs such as chicken, will take suffocation damage if they jump onto a block with a solid block above them, and eventually die after enough times taking 1/2 heart of damage. 

I have not been spamming comments to bump my own issue. As stated, detailed, and summarized above, MC-153997 (this) has a few minor commonalities shared by the other issues, and very much is not covered wholly or by a 'good enough' standard by the other issues. As I would rather this not become a heated argument, and that we do not seem to be getting on the same page, may I ask that my issue be 'assigned' to a different staff member for review?

Issue needs reopening please

Issue needs reopening please

and well I guess now the question of discussing whether or not we are discussing