I'm wondering if there is an easy way to tell how many anvil operations an item has been through so that I can plan in what order to add the existing combinations?
I suppose I could set up and compare a bunch of test items that have been through a known number of anvil operations but I was hoping for an easier solution.
Since all item repairs (using an unenchanted sacrifice and a damaged target) cost 2 levels or 1 level per unit you can just subtract that from the displayed cost when you try to repair an item; the penalty will only ever be 0, 1, 3, 7, 15, 31, or "too expensive" (63 or above)*, corresponding to 0-6 operations (the penalty is 2^n - 1, where n is the number of operations, each of which doubles the previous penalty and adds 1).
*There is one exception - items that were made prior to 1.8 will usually have a penalty of 2 (the fixed cost for a renamed item) or a multiple of 2 (the increment per operation), so such items will behave differently in 1.8+ (the penalty will be 2, 5, 11, 23, 47 for 0-4 operations in 1.8+). Of course, prior to 1.8 this wouldn't work at all since you'd need to calculate the enchantment and repair costs, which were always added to the final cost (1.8+ only charges the enchantment cost when combining and the repair cost depends on the durability of the sacrifice or restored per unit).
I'm wondering if there is an easy way to tell how many anvil operations an item has been through so that I can plan in what order to add the existing combinations?
I suppose I could set up and compare a bunch of test items that have been through a known number of anvil operations but I was hoping for an easier solution.
"Any item or stack of items can be renamed at a cost of one level plus any prior-work penalty." so just start to rename & subtract one…
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why does everything have to be so stoopid?" Harvey Pekar (from American Splendor)
WARNING: I have an extemely "grindy" playstyle; YMMV — if this doesn't seem fun to you, mine what you can from it & bin the rest.
Since all item repairs (using an unenchanted sacrifice and a damaged target) cost 2 levels or 1 level per unit you can just subtract that from the displayed cost when you try to repair an item; the penalty will only ever be 0, 1, 3, 7, 15, 31, or "too expensive"
Thank you, having your explanation as a starter made reading the Wiki page less daunting.
I think a (mock) renaming might be the way to go since damaging the item to get the repair cost would increase the cost of the actual operation even if only by 2 levels and only if the item tested is the one in the left slot.
I had been thinking of going with low level enchanted books but then I would have had to also subtract the cost of adding the enchantment and I would have needed different books for different items.
(Plus I was sorta hoping there would be a way to tell from the mouse over info box, though that wouldn't really have been all that much simpler. )
"Any item or stack of items can be renamed at a cost of one level plus any prior-work penalty." so just start to rename & subtract one…
Sorry, I missed your answer while checking the Wiki and composing my last post.
I think I might just put "1,2,4,8,16,32" on a sign next to the anvil, not that the math is hard I just have a hard time remembering if it's 6 or 7 operations you get before it's too expensive.
I'm wondering if there is an easy way to tell how many anvil operations an item has been through so that I can plan in what order to add the existing combinations?
I suppose I could set up and compare a bunch of test items that have been through a known number of anvil operations but I was hoping for an easier solution.
Just testing.
Since all item repairs (using an unenchanted sacrifice and a damaged target) cost 2 levels or 1 level per unit you can just subtract that from the displayed cost when you try to repair an item; the penalty will only ever be 0, 1, 3, 7, 15, 31, or "too expensive" (63 or above)*, corresponding to 0-6 operations (the penalty is 2^n - 1, where n is the number of operations, each of which doubles the previous penalty and adds 1).
See: https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Anvil_mechanics#Prior_Work_penalty
*There is one exception - items that were made prior to 1.8 will usually have a penalty of 2 (the fixed cost for a renamed item) or a multiple of 2 (the increment per operation), so such items will behave differently in 1.8+ (the penalty will be 2, 5, 11, 23, 47 for 0-4 operations in 1.8+). Of course, prior to 1.8 this wouldn't work at all since you'd need to calculate the enchantment and repair costs, which were always added to the final cost (1.8+ only charges the enchantment cost when combining and the repair cost depends on the durability of the sacrifice or restored per unit).
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
"Any item or stack of items can be renamed at a cost of one level plus any prior-work penalty." so just start to rename & subtract one…
Thank you, having your explanation as a starter made reading the Wiki page less daunting.
I think a (mock) renaming might be the way to go since damaging the item to get the repair cost would increase the cost of the actual operation even if only by 2 levels and only if the item tested is the one in the left slot.
I had been thinking of going with low level enchanted books but then I would have had to also subtract the cost of adding the enchantment and I would have needed different books for different items.
(Plus I was sorta hoping there would be a way to tell from the mouse over info box, though that wouldn't really have been all that much simpler. )
Just testing.
Sorry, I missed your answer while checking the Wiki and composing my last post.
I think I might just put "1,2,4,8,16,32" on a sign next to the anvil, not that the math is hard I just have a hard time remembering if it's 6 or 7 operations you get before it's too expensive.
(And that way I don't even have to subtract 1.)
Just testing.