soil instability questions

[talkingsoup]

So I play with both vertical and horizontal soil instability because it's funnier that way, but I've been very curious about how it actually works. Sometimes I can climb up loose dirt out of a pit without triggering a collapse, sometimes I can't. Sand and gravel seem to be more unstable than loose dirt, but other times dirt seems just as unstable. I thought maybe the presence of grass or trees might simulate a root system that would prevent a collapse, but that doesn't seem to be the case as I've seen a whole pit collapse while leaving several floating trees. I've seen landslides that seem to happen randomly without any trigger at all, just like real life. I'm just curious how it works. Is there a percentage chance of a dirt block collapsing based on entity/player interaction? Is it based on block updates or server ticks? Is it algorithmic? Does rainfall or moisture affect it at all? Is there a way to mitigate it when climbing up or down hillsides, or even potentially make it worse? Could I on purpose trigger an entire landslip to bury those pesky wolves? I'm just so curious about the back-end stuff that goes into making it work and what factors affect whether a block slips or not.

[EmperorPingu]

Consider the 9 blocks directly beneath the dirt block in question... If the one directly beneath the dirt is gone - the dirt falls. If any of the others (8 spaces) are not filled by another block, then there is a chance that the block falls into one of those spaces. The block gets updated whenever you jump on it (walk on it as well I think), or place another block next to it. It does seem to be random without fixed laws it just becomes increasingly less likely that it will stay put the more empty spaces there are 2 blocks down from where it is.

Generally it's okay on the side of hills but not a guarantee. Get used to jumping a lot because you can mitigate some of the fallout if you jump immedietly after landing on a block - the block may still fall but you'd land on the block underneath it rather than having that block fling you down the side of a mountain for example.

Not certain, but my guess would be that the likelihood of a dirt/sand block sliding down would be somewhat akin to the system used with cave ins in that it is essentially a probability based on a number of conditional factors.

Good luck, and well done for picking the only respectable way to play the game! >:)

(Cave ins and soil instability are the only ways to play - everyone else can fight me over it >:0)

[IAmMoss]

On 1/13/2026 at 12:39 PM, EmperorPingu said:

Consider the 9 blocks directly beneath the dirt block in question... If the one directly beneath the dirt is gone - the dirt falls. If any of the others (8 spaces) are not filled by another block, then there is a chance that the block falls into one of those spaces. The block gets updated whenever you jump on it (walk on it as well I think), or place another block next to it. It does seem to be random without fixed laws it just becomes increasingly less likely that it will stay put the more empty spaces there are 2 blocks down from where it is.

Generally it's okay on the side of hills but not a guarantee. Get used to jumping a lot because you can mitigate some of the fallout if you jump immedietly after landing on a block - the block may still fall but you'd land on the block underneath it rather than having that block fling you down the side of a mountain for example.

Not certain, but my guess would be that the likelihood of a dirt/sand block sliding down would be somewhat akin to the system used with cave ins in that it is essentially a probability based on a number of conditional factors.

Good luck, and well done for picking the only respectable way to play the game! >:)

(Cave ins and soil instability are the only ways to play - everyone else can fight me over it >:0)

my favorite part of soil instability is when an entity or mob steps on a random block in a field and my game drops to 2 frames because there's like 500 dirt blocks falling into a chasm

[EmperorPingu]

1 minute ago, IAmMoss said:

my favorite part of soil instability is when an entity or mob steps on a random block in a field and my game drops to 2 frames because there's like 500 dirt blocks falling into a chasm

That's actually a very valid reason.

[talkingsoup]

19 hours ago, IAmMoss said:

my favorite part of soil instability is when an entity or mob steps on a random block in a field and my game drops to 2 frames because there's like 500 dirt blocks falling into a chasm

This happened to me just yesterday, I watched a shiver trigger the largest collapse I've ever seen and bury like four of its friends. Must have been like 200 blocks.

[IAmMoss]

On 1/14/2026 at 10:42 PM, EmperorPingu said:

That's actually a very valid reason.

Honestly, i love the idea. It is just way too sensitive. dirt should be more stable than sand or gravel yet it seems waay worse.

[Bruno Willis]

5 hours ago, IAmMoss said:

Honestly, i love the idea. It is just way too sensitive. dirt should be more stable than sand or gravel yet it seems waay worse.

Try the sticky dirt mod. It gives blocks with grass or plants growing on them a bit of extra stability, so you won't get whole hillsides collapsing, but dirt still caves in when you're digging it, and climbing gravel hills is still a slippery mess. 

[V1ncent]

On 1/15/2026 at 12:37 PM, IAmMoss said:

my favorite part of soil instability is when an entity or mob steps on a random block in a field and my game drops to 2 frames because there's like 500 dirt blocks falling into a chasm

If you want more 'dynamic' world like the sudden landslides, I would also suggest turn on the lighting fire, which can sometimes fight the nasty rusty with sheer nature force of FIRE

[Broccoli Clock]

I turn on landslides, cave-ins, and lightning starting fires. 

Sure, all these things could turn round and bite me, and to be honest they have - several times, but imo it all adds to the gameplay. Do I get annoyed trying to escape a steep sided valley as the dirt blocks pile down on me? Yup. Do I get annoyed when I am trapped after mining an unstable block? Yup. Do get annoyed when part of my wooden roof goes up in flame because I hadn't gotten round to placing copper lightening rods? Yup.

For me, that annoyance is part of the game, if I wanted the easiest play through I can get then I'd just play creative.

 

Edited February 12 by Broccoli Clock

[Teh Pizza Lady]

1 hour ago, Broccoli Clock said:

lightning starting fires

I used to play with this, but we found out the hard way that the weather on the server is limited to around the immediate areas surrounding the players, but lightning strikes can extend much further, as far as the render distance. Now imagine watching an entire forest burn down on a rainy night with high temporal activity because it was raining on YOU, but not the forest, even though it should have been.

[Broccoli Clock]

11 minutes ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

I used to play with this, but we found out the hard way that the weather on the server is limited to around the immediate areas surrounding the players, but lightning strikes can extend much further, as far as the render distance. Now imagine watching an entire forest burn down on a rainy night with high temporal activity because it was raining on YOU, but not the forest, even though it should have been.

Sorry I really should have said, "when I play single player". I can imagine how expanding it onto a server would cause issues. In fact I'd be far more inclined to play a "non-realistic" multiplayer experience for all the reasons you mention.

In terms of playing locally, I don't mind if the lightning strikes hit outside of my render distance. I've played with it on quite a lot, and while I do occasionally run into areas that look fire-ravaged, it's far less than I would have maybe expected considering I see quite a lot of lightning at times, yet most forests remain damp.

[Teh Pizza Lady]

24 minutes ago, Broccoli Clock said:

In terms of playing locally, I don't mind if the lightning strikes hit outside of my render distance. I've played with it on quite a lot, and while I do occasionally run into areas that look fire-ravaged, it's far less than I would have maybe expected considering I see quite a lot of lightning at times, yet most forests remain damp.

Well the issue we found was that the forest would render and we could see the fire raging, but couldn't do anything about it because the weather in OUR area was clear but over there it was rainy but didn't render so the forest burned down because the sync between both clients and the server was "Weather is clear, fire can spread."

[LadyWYT]

31 minutes ago, Broccoli Clock said:

In terms of playing locally, I don't mind if the lightning strikes hit outside of my render distance. I've played with it on quite a lot, and while I do occasionally run into areas that look fire-ravaged, it's far less than I would have maybe expected considering I see quite a lot of lightning at times, yet most forests remain damp.

The thing that annoys me about it is that while I like the chance of disaster...the forest is just never going to grow back in that spot. Thus the longer the world persists, the more bald spots there are in the areas around my base. It starts to look pretty ugly after a while, thus I opt to keep the setting turned off in favor of having a prettier world.

[Bruno Willis]

3 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

The thing that annoys me about it is that while I like the chance of disaster...the forest is just never going to grow back in that spot. Thus the longer the world persists, the more bald spots there are in the areas around my base. It starts to look pretty ugly after a while, thus I opt to keep the setting turned off in favor of having a prettier world.

Yeah, I want to play with lightening spreading fire, but it doesn't feel realistic or fully fleshed out yet. I really think the game would thrive if it had systems to recover from disaster and deforestation. 

I'd go with forest floor being able to generate saplings if there are no trees left within a certain area and berry bushes re-growing from burned remnants after fires, etc. 

[Teh Pizza Lady]

44 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said:

I'd go with forest floor being able to generate saplings if there are no trees left within a certain area and berry bushes re-growing from burned remnants after fires, etc.

sounds like a solid entry for the suggestions forum for people to fight over.

[IAmMoss]

On 2/11/2026 at 1:05 AM, Bruno Willis said:

Try the sticky dirt mod. It gives blocks with grass or plants growing on them a bit of extra stability, so you won't get whole hillsides collapsing, but dirt still caves in when you're digging it, and climbing gravel hills is still a slippery mess. 

thanks for the suggestion. ill be downloading it soon!

[Thorfinn]

On 2/11/2026 at 1:39 AM, V1ncent said:

If you want more 'dynamic' world like the sudden landslides, I would also suggest turn on the lighting fire, which can sometimes fight the nasty rusty with sheer nature force of FIRE

I never thought of that. Have you tried doing temporal storms by lighting backfires? IME, setting them on fire is almost pointless. It takes way too long for them to die. About the only good thing about it is they generally run towards water, and you can hit them from behind with impunity because putting out the fire is the higher priority action. But I can see it being useful for higher level spawns, unless their drops get nerfed because they are on fire, even if you took them out.

[LadyWYT]

2 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

IME, setting them on fire is almost pointless. It takes way too long for them to die.

While it might be ineffective, it is quite entertaining. Planting lots of thorny berry bushes around with Wildcraft provides similar entertainment.

 

3 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

About the only good thing about it is they generally run towards water, and you can hit them from behind with impunity because putting out the fire is the higher priority action.

 If this is the case, what happens if you provide a convenient swimming pool nearby? And by "convenient" I mean conveniently located at the bottom of a pit or something, from which there is no escape.

[Thorfinn]

Yeah, I used to get a chuckle out of it, too, @LadyWYT. Considered adding flaming arrows. Says something about my personality, maybe. Have not tried it in the last several versions, and never was very interested in cheesing it, so other than noting it is a thing, I spent no time on it.

[V1ncent]

On 2/19/2026 at 1:21 AM, Thorfinn said:

 It takes way too long for them to die. 

Well, the fire damage itself is negligible, but the on-fire light effect and the damage stun can save me some hassels to pin-point and neutralize those nasty bugs in the storm.