Talk: Enchanting

A new layout

We should make a drop down menu for the enchantment so it would be easier to find the enchantment for the tools--Dogsteeves (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The enchantments are already organized by what items can receive the enchantment. The Blobs 17:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

when I said drop down menu I meant like this http://imgur.com/a/N5gY4 --Dogsteeves (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It's worth considering. Maybe not a drop-down menu, but anyway, some way of displaying enchantments on a per-tool basis, rather than on a per-enchantment basis. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 20:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The Status effect and Commands pages have brief summaries, followed by a more detailed description. Perhaps we should follow that model. The Blobs 20:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

That is a good idea, we should do that! Those formats on those other pages broke us out of the table mould, and for the better, I believe. Though that is still a per-enchantment list, not a per-tool list, right? – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 17:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Agree — I'm thinking a summary table might have enchantment IDs, Names, and then a column for each significant enchantable item with maybe an enchanting table or anvil in each cell to indicate what's required for the enchantment. That way you could just click on an item in the column header to sort its possible enchantments to the top. There … are actually quite a few enchantable items so I'm not sure if that's a viable long-term strategy (in terms of table width), and I don't think there would be enough space to have both item columns as well as Max Level and a description column, but I think it would work for now. —munin · · 14:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Funny you mention. I'd mocked that exact thing up (User:Sealbudsman/Sandbox/Enchanting_Matrix) last week or so; it works nicely except for how wide it is. And the scrollbar is at the bottom, which is kinda okay, except that the table is tall. Anyone, feel free to play around with it if you like. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 15:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Would you consider showing the utility blocks using {{SimpleGrid}} rather than {{InvSprite}}? The Blobs 16:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure; updated. Also for some reason I had it unnecessarily wide. Now it's about 1200 by 1200px. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 20:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I knocked it down from a 1200px square to a 900px square, by leaving out the utility blocks altogether, and using {{BlockSprite}} and {{ItemSprite}} instead of {{SimpleGrid}}; added a demo of that to the page. So, space savings are possible. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 21:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

That is a very sparse table. Maybe break it up into two tables: wearable (armor, elytra, pumpkins, mob heads) and usable (weapons, shields, tools)? Basically, armor slots vs. hand slots. A few enchantments would appear in both tables but I think that would be okay. Also, sorting the first column by ID is unintuitive — I'd either add an ID column as the initial sort or just let the name column sort by alpha. —munin · · 15:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

True. I made a third and fourth demo; the third was an experiment in minimizing how sparse the table is by combining rows, which, seeing it, I don't favor; I consider demo 4 as my response to your comment. Thanks for the feedback. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 17:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I like the fourth one as well. The narrower tables also fit on my phone screen without horizontal scrolling. -- Orthotope^talk 20:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

#4 layout looks good to me too. —munin · · 20:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 #4 is good The Blobs 22:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 Agree, 4 looks best so far. Can we swap the tables so the larger one is first? Looks better I think. I think we can fit block/item sprites in the cells pretty well, would look nicer than just the colours. –Majr ᐸ Talk
Contribs 07:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added Sealbudsman's tables to the page and, um, went ahead and added another summary table I thought would be useful, … and converted the description table to headings. I'd appreciate it if someone would check/correct the fiddly bits, IDs, etc.

I'm not sure if IDs are really needed in the summary table, they're available down in the Data section if necessary. —munin · · 21:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice ... Do you know if the notes that say "anvil required for Level V" are complete and exhaustive? I haven't known how to check whether the enchantment table level cap is lower than the anvil level cap. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 22:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, sorry. —munin · · 22:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Externals links

Could we link to some external calculators that is updated and therefore a lot more useful (currently the "newest" has not been changed since 1.8) ? Does anyone know of any existing? /83.255.2.175 15:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

When did Pocket Edition change unbreaking to durability?

When did PE change unbreaking to durability? It doesn't say on the history and it should be added. Cherryblossom000 (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Jocopa3 may know the answer. Also, please use "Add topic" (Add discussion in the mobile view). The Blobs 04:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

In PE, unbreaking has always internally been durability. The enchantment is only called "Unbreaking" in the language files; the game code called it "durability" since enchantments were first added. The reason it shows up as durability when using commands is because PE commands use internal names to represent objects and values, and not localized names. Jocopa3 (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Looting, Uncommon, Rare and Common drops

I had been doing a little digging around in the MCP, looking for the basis for the distinction between Uncommon, Rare and Common drops, or how Looting interacts with these types, and I've yet to find where this is handled. I could be looking in all the wrong places, but I suspect right now that loot tables handle this entirely, which I think means it needs to be rewritten on the Drops page and in the Enchanting#Looting section, and maybe on the mobs' pages as well. Could anybody double check me? Anomie x and Munin295? – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 22:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Fire Protection

I see that "Ongoing damage from being on fire" is not absorbed by armor, and that Fire Protection will reduce the amount of time that the wearer is on fire, but does Fire Protection also absorb damage from ongoing fire damage (as Feather Fall protects against normally non-absorbent fall damage)? Either way, I think that it should be clarified in the description text.

EDIT: After testing, Fire Protection does help reduce ongoing fire damage. I have updated the main page.–Preceding unsigned comment was added by Sealbudsman (talk • contribs) at 3:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Proposed split/merge

There are two articles that discuss enchanting: Enchanting (this page) and Enchantment mechanics. About 60% of the Enchanting page is taken up by the list of enchantments. What if (#1) we split enchantments off onto their own page (Enchantments, currently a redirect page), and then reincoporated enchantment mechanics back into this page? Would that make more sense? Or (#2), just split off enchantments and leave mechanics as its own article?

There's also Anvil mechanics but its discussion of enchantment combining should probably stay there as the page covers much more and it would be weird to split it up.

—munin · · 15:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This page appears like it could be cleanly separated into 3 parts: a list of enchantments for a new "Enchantments" page, basic material to be added to an "Enchantment table mechanics" page (rename the "Enchantment mechanics" page, that's really all it is), and basic material to be added to "Anvil mechanics" -- what do you think – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 16:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I believe the enchantment mechanic is also used to generate enchanted books for villagers and fishing (but not for loot chests?). What would be added to the anvil mechanics page? —munin · · 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: generated books: that's a good point, maybe the rename isn't a great idea. Though if "Enchantment mechanics" describes generated books, and not just how the table works, maybe that fact should go on that page as well; I don't see it anywhere there. For the Anvil mechanics page, there was just that small section, Enchanting#Anvil combinations, though that may be entirely redundant or not, I haven't looked closely. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 19:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Anvil mechanics already goes into much greater detail about combining items than Enchanting does, but I think it makes sense to leave it as is (because it builds on other material in the article), with details on the Anvil mechanics page and a summary/seemain on the enchanting page. —munin · · 14:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The pages for other GUI gameplay mechanics (crafting, smelting, brewing and trading) have complete lists. It would be inconsistent to have the enchantment list on a separate page. The anvil mechanics is different because the non-technical part is on the anvil page. The Blobs 04:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Table

People what have you done? There was a very easy way of identifying what enchant did what and to what, the table was excellent. Now there are some little matrices that make it really hard to understand what is going on? Those pics are so small too - not everyone has 20:20 eyesight. Bad move! -- X septic sid x (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There was a major shortcoming - you couldn't tell, for a given tool, what enchantments can go on it. That info simply was missing and now it's there. Nothing was removed. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 02:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)