Minecraft Wiki talk:Issues/1.2 Preview

High enchanting levels hard to obtain compared to benefit
a! The enchanting system has always, and continues to be frustratingly unfair. sometimes producing Efficiency III when a level 50 enchant is used. Considering you need to kill NINE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE zombies/creepers etc, to get to Level 50, users are naturally in consensus that, to quote Yahtzee Croshaw, the ratio of difficulty to find versus actual usefulness is completely arbitrary. While we respect the mystique Mojang have tried to create about enchanting, the numbers need serious review. Kizzycocoa
 * This is quite true. I just used 45 levels to get efficiency 2 unbreaking 1. I was hoping for at least fortune 1. We need some way to decide what enchants we get beforehand, rather than relying 100% on luck. Maybe decide what enchants we get, and have the ranks decided by our level, the more enchants we choose, the lower the ranks are(based on your level, of course) -Amd4700
 * i agree that there should be a way to not get like only unbreaking III on lv 50. but the numbers are ok, cause we have an fast xp farm on our server^^!
 * I have to disagree. even with farms, it takes a long time to get to 50. and many users, myself including, have no idea how to even make an XP farm, as they all abuse gravity glitches and water/sign glitches. to penalise the XP system because of those who cheat it, rather than reward those who, however the hell they manage it, go out and kill these 925 zombies, it is not acceptable. bear in mind, to legitimately get all that XP, you need to hit zombies 3 times with a diamond sword. 925x3=2775 hits. diamond swords can only hit for 1562. so basically, if you FULLY wear out a diamond sword without dying, you're still no-where near 50. you're actually just above HALFWAY. to destroy two diamond sword, and preserve your life so long, just to get Unbreaking III to commend your work. the whole system needs desperate revamping. --Kizzycocoa 12:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Still agree to this as usual... I always get disappointed when using level 10. 15. or 20 enchantments. XP should also be gained from mining/building/crafting, we are playing Minecraft. C ali nou - talk × contribs » 20:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * oh yes, yes, yes! as i said on the previous snapshot, XP farms are at least a workaround, EXCEPT for peaceful mode, where it is even harder to reach those numbers because domestic animals don't give much XP -- and most enchantments don't even do much for us.  i'd love it if we got some way to make XP in peaceful without having to switch to hard just to grind XP from a farm. also, grinding is just so tedious, and doesn't add anything to the game for me. Piranha 05:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Completely agreed. Another good discussion of this can be found at http://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/pzrwc/lets_face_it_enchanting_sucks_grinding_is_a_hack/ --Frozenpandaman 22:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not just remove the randomness. Have certain enchantments cost X number of levels for certain strengths and let players add up to 3 to any item.  That way you can enchant an item with say 3 level 50 enchantments (you can still only enchant once so..) No more wasted grinding and you can even still have a "random" option for the people that like the element of surprise (with a chance of getting 3 level 50's for a net cost of 50 levels)

Here are some options to resolve terribly underpowered high level enchanting: 1) XP for more than killing mobs.
 * Breeding?
 * Harvesting?
 * Special Ore Gathering?

2) Increased power margin of high level enchantments. For instance, Power V is only barely enough to kill a typical mob some of the time in one shot, when it should be powerful enough to kill a mob multiple times over, for the XP that is required to achieve this enchantment. (Same with protection and sharpness type enchantments.)

High Level enchantments just don't have marginal utility of the ridiculous amount of XP required to get them: Power I kills a mob in two charged criticals, Power V kills a mob in two charged criticals (with the occasional 1-shot). Why would I enchant at level 50 instead of level 1?

3) (My Favorite!) Scale up the likelihood percentages for getting special enchantments, like Looting/Fire Aspect/Fortune. Currently, these enchants find themselves at best between 10-15% percent per enchantment beyond local minima (typically around lvl 20). This stays roughly the same (typically closer to 15-20%) at the highest levels, when they should be closer to 30-50% or higher. No, I'm not going to level 50 ten times to get Looting I, no matter how much mystique and uniqueness Mojang want to build around rare enchantments- I'll just stay frustrated, thanks. If it is significantly more likely that I'll get a rare enchantment at a high level, I will be much more likely to try to get to that high level.

4) Guarantee a certain number of enchantments at high levels. For instance- you may be guaranteed 3 or 4 enchantments per item at level 50, guaranteed 2 or 3 enchantments at level 40, guaranteed 2 enchantments at level 30. Or something to that effect.

Implementing some or all of these 4 approaches would, in my opinion, greatly assuage our frustrations and fix the currently underpowered marginal utility of enchanting at high levels.


 * Personally, I think enchanting system is overpowered as it is, at least weapons and armour (especially armour), making the combat not challenging at all. However, there is one buff that I would like to see with regards to enchanting system: when enchanting something, total XP should be reduced, not the level. For example, when you are at level 50 (i.e. you have 4625 XP) and you enchant a bow to level 10 (i.e. 225 XP) you should end up with 4400 XP, which places you at level 49, not at level 40 as the case is now (costing you 1625 XP). It doesn't make much sense that enchanting low level stuff is much more expensive at high levels (compare 225 at level 10, to 1625 at level 50 for level 10 item). This means experience wouldn't be wasted at high levels when enchanting low level stuff. Kcin

I do not think this is a bug. I think this is more a suggestion. Please post on getsatisification instead of here. Minecraft5025 23:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The known bugs issue is also for major annoyances. I dare you to find ANYONE who thinks the system as is is perfect.
 * in the entire conversation thing, only one person has approved of them, who is Kcin. aside from him, the feedback is damning. and putting it here is appropriate --Kizzycocoa 00:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Monsters do NOT spawn anymore
Since 12w07b, I have not seen any monsters spawn (on any difficulty besides Peaceful). I wander around at night and see NO monsters. Why were monsters taken out of the game???

Coal/Charcoal/Redstone block
a There is no storage block for redstone, coal or charcoal. It is annoying how there is a storage block for the rarest material (diamond) but not for the most common ones which often clog up a player's inventory. So I demand obsidian stairs, glass stairs, dirt, grass, soulsand and other stairs to be added or existing stairs be removed. All or Nothing! :) --— MiiNiPaaT 08:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the Diamond Block isn't intended as a storage block but rather a building block for bragging rights. --10.0.0.123 00:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's beside the point: it is useful for storage, as that guy brought up, and there are storage blocks for gold, iron, and lapis lazuli. I have several stacks of iron blocks I got from searching for diamonds. Why not redstone, coal and charcoal as well? Redstone DUST in particular, that sounds like something that could be easily made into a block. 192.168.70.95 13:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If we have storage block for diamond, it doesn't make slightest sense to not have storage block for coal. In my opinion, there either should be no storage blocks or all storage blocks. If it was up to me, there would be storage block even for redstone, maybe this could function as vertical redstone wiring. Rate this is major annoyance, if there is consensus, I favor. 88.194.240.185
 * >In my opinion, there either should be no storage blocks or all storage blocks.
 * That would be cool if they added those. Soulsand? 188.238.218.170 11:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I second it. Redstone takes up so much space, and redstone - for quite a number of players, actually - is only useful in huge amounts. The ability to craft blocks of redstone could also add some mechanics that Minecraft desperately needs, like if you left click/right click/step on a block of redstone it would send a signal (the latter differs from a regular pressure plate in that a piston could extend over the block with no pressure plates popping off the ground). Or maybe a block of redstone would send a signal if it detected a block update - that way we could make some really interesting circuits without utilizing bugs or giant BUD switches. 91.144.213.35 20:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is an annoyance. That said, it's not all too difficult to simply build another chest or four. 72.39.232.254 03:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't carry a chest full of redstone with you, though. Whereas you can carry a stack of 64 blocks of iron that you can craft into 9 stacks of iron ingots. It would be very helpful if you could do this with coal and redstone as well. 108.85.91.228 05:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In addition to storage there are good ideas for how we could use a redstone block in circuits, and even a mod or two for it. Coal also could have use as a block, such as long fuel times or persistent burning (like netherrack).  I don't think it's realistic to crush rocks and dust into a compact block, but there's certainly precedent and potential. Pareidolon 06:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A long-burning fuel source would be a good idea - maybe make 9 pieces of coal into a block that burns 10 times as long. Redstone blocks could maybe work as a two-way, delay-free repeater, or maybe even a vertical circuit.  Building two-way circuits is a hassle if they're longer than 16 blocks. --King Starscream 17:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It could be non-placable block, that can be smelted to placable block. But coal could be just non-placable. 188.238.218.170 12:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * i don't even see why it should be non-placeable -- the more blocks us builders have to build with, the better. it strikes me as funny that diamond and gold have placeable storage blocks but the much more common redstone and coal don't. i've got a mod that does this, but i think it should be part of the game proper, even if it does nothing special (the special ideas are cool, but i just want the blocks first). Piranha 04:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the reason why I suggested non-placeable, so they get added. I would be glad even if they were non-placable. 188.238.218.170 22:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm saying screw professionalism in this discussion. This is just completely stupid. The iron and diamond blocks weren't supposed to be "storage blocks". They are the original pure ore blocks that are leftovers from classic when there weren't items. If you read Jeb's twitter he doesn't just add blocks unless they actually do something truly significant. Adding something for people who are too lazy to make more chests is the furthest thing from significant. --Moxxy 06:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you as far as the storage argument, Moxxy, but it strikes me that more blocks/colors/textures to play with is always a good thing, particularly if they can be introduced in a simole and logical way. It's not like a new flavor of ore is being asked for. --72.208.204.70 12:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's function that is missing, maybe 16 block player proximity detector block. This would be logical, because redstone ore gets lighten up when you hit it. So condensed redstone would detect player even if isn't hit. 188.238.218.170 19:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)