Hey there, just wanted to propose a small addition to furnaces and smelting.
It would be nice and practical in survival to be able to limitedly recycle items like gold armour back to craftable parent items using smelting.
For example, taking a used gold helmet and smelting it back to a few gold ingots or nuggets.
I understand we can repair the items, but if we dont need it then it has no effective use.
example: mob drops gold helmet.
Simply getting your full cost in ingots back would be bad, so there are a few options i could think of.
*The amount received could be based on the condition of the item, but respectively you would only receive a percentage back on a newer item so as not to op value.
Likewise, to avoid abuse from recycling items at the last of their life, maybe items can only be re-smelted if still at half or better condition.
or
*The amount received is based on the item. Boots 1 ingot, Helmet 1 ingot, Chestplate 2 ingots... etc.
or
*Any item = 1 ingot only, no question.
It does not have to be a big return impact and the received amount doesn't have to be high, its just bringing life back into unused items and drops.
Smelting it back would could be a fun twist on using older items or mob drops. Your not getting a full refund, but more like an ingot or two at the cost of furnace fuel and time.
Of course, it'd be nice to be getting amount of ingots based on item's cost and wear.
N = floor(D/M*C), where N - amount of ingots, D - durability left, M - max durability of the item, C - item cost in ingots, floor() rounds argument down to the next integer.
For example, an undamaged pickaxe will net you 3 ingots, but if you break as much as one block with it, you will get only 2.
It leads to a problem, though, because current smelting system is not adapted to having more than 1 item being produced. What should happen if smelting produces 2 ingots and there is only place for one in the slot?
If version above seems to be too generous, or simply to leave current smelting algorithm as it is, recycling could be simplified: 1 intact item = 1 ingot, and damaged items can not be smelted (you'll have to repair them via crafting first).
But I agree, with new agressive zombies I'm getting a lot of broken golden armor pieces I have no use for. It's just annoying to see all that precious gold (which could've been used for potions or beacon pyramids!) wasted.
I give my support. I agree that the amount you get should be equal to the amount of the bar on an item. This gives some reason to the half broken gold armor that drops off of zombies.
I would support it as long as it was designed in a way to not be op. I think for instance, 50% of the items parent material, in your example, gold should immediate be lost when re-smelting. So if it took 4 to create it, you only get 2 back at 100% item durability. You could also scale it too for damage, so something at 50% durability would get 1 ingot back.
I was just posting something similar, but hadn't searched for 'recycle' first. Glad I thought to halfway through my post.
I obviously like the idea; being based on the wear / durability remaining would be nice. Rarely a shortage of wood, but it would be nice to be able to break down a bow for some string, or turn the extra hoppers I accidentally made back into iron. And the skeletons coming out of my dungeon's spawner farm seem to be rich, so many of them have full sets of gold armor.
GREAT idea. But like people have said you should get have the ingots back that it took to smelt it and you can only recycle items at half heatlth or more.
MAJOR SUPPORT.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
llamaglama, dunklestein and burningleaf777 are friends at school. Sometimes we all use the school computers. Please don't ban us for alt accounts.
I caught a pair of leather boots today while I was fishing. Now, I've got no need for leather armor, especially boots. But the leather would be handy; I could make some more item frames without having to go over to my farm and beat up a few cows. I got to thinking how handy it would be to be able to recover some of the leather from those boots.
Recycling items would not, I think, be OP. By the time someone can get serious about farming, say, skeletons -- that is, build a farm around a spawner and all -- they can get leather/iron/gold much more quickly by normal means. Mostly, it would be just a way to do something with otherwise-useless items that clutter up chest space because you can't make yourself just throw a gold anything down a lava pit. And something like a worn-out bow ... it's made of 3 sticks and 3 string. You'd get 1-2 sticks and 1-2 string back from salvaging it. This is not game-breaking. The only possible exception I can see, based on rarity, is diamonds.
I'd say an item should yield 1/2 the materials it would take to craft it. So, for instance, if something takes 4 iron to make, it would return 2 iron. In the case of odd numbers, let's say it took 5 iron, then it should be 2-3 iron (50% chance either way).
I can think of three ways to do this.
One would be to place the item in the "output" slot of a crafting table, at which point the materials it's made of, or, rather, the percentage you can salvage, would appear in the crafting space, and if you start taking them, the item disappears and all the materials become real.
The other would be to build a sort of anti-crafting table (dismantling bench?) that has an input space where you put the item, and a series of output spaces (equal to a crafting table) where the materials appear.
The third would be a variant on the dismantling bench idea, where the table it just has one space, and the materials from dismantling that item would just appear in your inventory (if space is available0 or drop on the ground, ifn ot.
Great, now I do not need my butter armor and pickaxe (I'm not offending Skydoesminecraft) anymore - I just have to re-smelt it back into what it was created from, and I can have the ingots used for other things.
It sounds great, especially for un-needed armor drops. I support THIS!
however I would base the recycle value on its constriction / durability value, an example is 50% damaged Leggings. 7 Ingots (Legging construct value) x 50% (Leggings current durability)
7 x 0.50 = 3.5 ingots when recycling but since you can't physically get 3.5 it will just give you 3 ingots instead. makes sense?
you will lose a small percentage most times but I think that just makes it un-OP.
I agree with BlackAbsence - recycling value should be added, too.
Also, maybe we should leave anvils to repairing and renaming, of course. Maybe what about adding a recycle anvil that has the same three states (normal, little damage, very damage) like the anvil does, but recycles?
This is a pretty good idea. It would be a nice way to make use out of those useless sets of gold armor from zombies.
Support.
Also, I think the re-smelting should work like this:
100% durability: 50% of materials received
75% durability: 40% of materials received
50% durability: 25% of materials received
25% durability: 10% of materials received
Less than 25% durability: No smelting allowed
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Do we want to be the mediocre brimstone boy, or do we want to be the more-than-enough brimstone man?" - Northernlion
The reason I don't think durability should enter into it is because there's not really that much of a loss of material in an item. Take, say, a gold helmet. As it loses durability, it develops cracks, it gets bent, and it doesn't cover your head very well anymore. But most of the gold doesn't actually go missing. That's actually less true of leather items than metal ones -- leather isn't really all that easy to re-use -- but recycling leather is downright trivial; that's really more because we hate to throw things away. The most leather you could get would be four, from a leather chestpiece, and you can get that much (plus some meat and exp!) just by smacking a few cows. The idea of getting back 50% of the original materials would take care of that well enough.
BioShock_Rules, with your system, anything less than 25% durability would be unsalvageable, because the crafting table can't hold 10 items, so at most you're getting 10% of 9, which is less than 1! It would not be possible to salvage an item such as a fishing pole, for instance, at 50% durability, because you'd get .75 of a stick and .5 of a string -- again, less than 1. Getting half the original mats for an item is little enough; it doesn't have to be almost nothing (or nothing). The whole point of this is having a way to salvage and make use of the junk items we got off of mobs, from fishing, and so on, and most of those have very low durability; I'm not sure I've ever found one that was over 50%. So most such items would not return anything at all.
I'm also not in favor of using an anvil for it because, really, you're wearing out something that requires a whole bunch of iron to create to recover a few pieces of leather? I think it should be a permanent item -- a crafting table, or a new dismantling bench, or something, but not an item like an anvil that wears out over time.
As far as diamond items, perhaps have a very low chance (now there's a use for BioShock_Rules' % table) to recover diamonds from them; otherwise, the loss of durability is because the diamond is wearing out/breaking. That makes logical sense: metals can be melted down and reused (consider scrap iron as a commodity IRL), we'll keep wood and stone in there because they're newbie materials, and after the first day in MC, you don't really need to get them from salvage, but you just don't want to throw that thing out, and leather, again, because it's a newbie thing, and if you're at the point of being able to salvage leather armor, you're wearing iron at least, and only want the leather to make item frames out of.
Let's see, what items have durability, anyway, and how many units of materials do they require?
Neither one, IMO, is really overpowered. Consider that I've killed hundreds of skeletons in my most recent skeleton farm, and gotten only one gold chestplate out of them all, along with two gold helmets and a pair of iron boots (plus a bunch of leather junk). That would salvage to 8 (or 8-10) gold and 2 iron. I could have gotten that much in a relatively short time mining; in fact, I probably found at least that much while I was setting up my skeleton farm. I've gotten a bunch of bows, true, that would salvage into ... um, well, sticks and string. Let's say I've got 20 bows. That would be 20 (or 20-30) sticks, or what I'd make from (at most!) a single smallish tree, and likewise 20 (or 20-30) string, which I could have gotten if I'd been clearing an abandoned mineshaft, or if I could find a freaking spider spawner to farm them, in much less time.
So there's really no need to cut it down even further; it's already at a pretty minimal level.
Anyway, I strongly support the OP's suggetsi0n of this, and hopefully we'll see this in the future.
It would be nice and practical in survival to be able to limitedly recycle items like gold armour back to craftable parent items using smelting.
For example, taking a used gold helmet and smelting it back to a few gold ingots or nuggets.
I understand we can repair the items, but if we dont need it then it has no effective use.
example: mob drops gold helmet.
Simply getting your full cost in ingots back would be bad, so there are a few options i could think of.
*The amount received could be based on the condition of the item, but respectively you would only receive a percentage back on a newer item so as not to op value.
Likewise, to avoid abuse from recycling items at the last of their life, maybe items can only be re-smelted if still at half or better condition.
or
*The amount received is based on the item. Boots 1 ingot, Helmet 1 ingot, Chestplate 2 ingots... etc.
or
*Any item = 1 ingot only, no question.
It does not have to be a big return impact and the received amount doesn't have to be high, its just bringing life back into unused items and drops.
Smelting it back would could be a fun twist on using older items or mob drops. Your not getting a full refund, but more like an ingot or two at the cost of furnace fuel and time.
N = floor(D/M*C), where N - amount of ingots, D - durability left, M - max durability of the item, C - item cost in ingots, floor() rounds argument down to the next integer.
For example, an undamaged pickaxe will net you 3 ingots, but if you break as much as one block with it, you will get only 2.
It leads to a problem, though, because current smelting system is not adapted to having more than 1 item being produced. What should happen if smelting produces 2 ingots and there is only place for one in the slot?
If version above seems to be too generous, or simply to leave current smelting algorithm as it is, recycling could be simplified: 1 intact item = 1 ingot, and damaged items can not be smelted (you'll have to repair them via crafting first).
But I agree, with new agressive zombies I'm getting a lot of broken golden armor pieces I have no use for. It's just annoying to see all that precious gold (which could've been used for potions or beacon pyramids!) wasted.
But that's just my thoughts.
I obviously like the idea; being based on the wear / durability remaining would be nice. Rarely a shortage of wood, but it would be nice to be able to break down a bow for some string, or turn the extra hoppers I accidentally made back into iron. And the skeletons coming out of my dungeon's spawner farm seem to be rich, so many of them have full sets of gold armor.
MAJOR SUPPORT.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffRecycling items would not, I think, be OP. By the time someone can get serious about farming, say, skeletons -- that is, build a farm around a spawner and all -- they can get leather/iron/gold much more quickly by normal means. Mostly, it would be just a way to do something with otherwise-useless items that clutter up chest space because you can't make yourself just throw a gold anything down a lava pit. And something like a worn-out bow ... it's made of 3 sticks and 3 string. You'd get 1-2 sticks and 1-2 string back from salvaging it. This is not game-breaking. The only possible exception I can see, based on rarity, is diamonds.
I'd say an item should yield 1/2 the materials it would take to craft it. So, for instance, if something takes 4 iron to make, it would return 2 iron. In the case of odd numbers, let's say it took 5 iron, then it should be 2-3 iron (50% chance either way).
I can think of three ways to do this.
One would be to place the item in the "output" slot of a crafting table, at which point the materials it's made of, or, rather, the percentage you can salvage, would appear in the crafting space, and if you start taking them, the item disappears and all the materials become real.
The other would be to build a sort of anti-crafting table (dismantling bench?) that has an input space where you put the item, and a series of output spaces (equal to a crafting table) where the materials appear.
The third would be a variant on the dismantling bench idea, where the table it just has one space, and the materials from dismantling that item would just appear in your inventory (if space is available0 or drop on the ground, ifn ot.
The golden age: it's not the game, it's you ⋆ Why Minecraft should not be harder ⋆ Spelling hints
Support.
however I would base the recycle value on its constriction / durability value, an example is 50% damaged Leggings.
7 Ingots (Legging construct value) x 50% (Leggings current durability)
7 x 0.50 = 3.5 ingots when recycling but since you can't physically get 3.5 it will just give you 3 ingots instead. makes sense?
you will lose a small percentage most times but I think that just makes it un-OP.
also can this be used with Anvils?
BA
Also, maybe we should leave anvils to repairing and renaming, of course. Maybe what about adding a recycle anvil that has the same three states (normal, little damage, very damage) like the anvil does, but recycles?
Support.
I completely understand not doing it with stone and diamond though.
If it would work with diamonds it would be too OP.
(crafting items bought from villagers back to diamonds)
Support.
Also, I think the re-smelting should work like this:
100% durability: 50% of materials received
75% durability: 40% of materials received
50% durability: 25% of materials received
25% durability: 10% of materials received
Less than 25% durability: No smelting allowed
"Do we want to be the mediocre brimstone boy, or do we want to be the more-than-enough brimstone man?" - Northernlion
Check out my new game, Legends of Aekran!
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffBioShock_Rules, with your system, anything less than 25% durability would be unsalvageable, because the crafting table can't hold 10 items, so at most you're getting 10% of 9, which is less than 1! It would not be possible to salvage an item such as a fishing pole, for instance, at 50% durability, because you'd get .75 of a stick and .5 of a string -- again, less than 1. Getting half the original mats for an item is little enough; it doesn't have to be almost nothing (or nothing). The whole point of this is having a way to salvage and make use of the junk items we got off of mobs, from fishing, and so on, and most of those have very low durability; I'm not sure I've ever found one that was over 50%. So most such items would not return anything at all.
I'm also not in favor of using an anvil for it because, really, you're wearing out something that requires a whole bunch of iron to create to recover a few pieces of leather? I think it should be a permanent item -- a crafting table, or a new dismantling bench, or something, but not an item like an anvil that wears out over time.
As far as diamond items, perhaps have a very low chance (now there's a use for BioShock_Rules' % table) to recover diamonds from them; otherwise, the loss of durability is because the diamond is wearing out/breaking. That makes logical sense: metals can be melted down and reused (consider scrap iron as a commodity IRL), we'll keep wood and stone in there because they're newbie materials, and after the first day in MC, you don't really need to get them from salvage, but you just don't want to throw that thing out, and leather, again, because it's a newbie thing, and if you're at the point of being able to salvage leather armor, you're wearing iron at least, and only want the leather to make item frames out of.
Let's see, what items have durability, anyway, and how many units of materials do they require?
Helmet - 5
Chestplate - 8
Pants - 7
Boots - 4
Sword - 1/2
Axe - 2/3
Shovel - 2/1
Pickaxe - 2/3
Hoe - 2/2
Bow - 3/3
Fishing Pole - 3/2
(for things with two numbers separated by a /slash, the first is the wood; the second the other material)
Did I miss any?
So, salvage values would be:
Helmet - 2-3
Chestplate - 4
Pants - 3-4
Boots - 2
Sword - 0-1/1
Axe - 1/1-2
Shovel - 1/0-1
Pickaxe - 1/1-2
Hoe - 1/1
Bow - 1-2/1-2
Fishing Pole - 1-2/1
If we just round down for faster/easier coding, it becomes:
Helmet - 2
Chestplate - 4
Pants - 3
Boots - 2
Sword - 0/1
Axe - 1/1
Shovel - 1/0
Pickaxe - 1/1
Hoe - 1/1
Bow - 1/1
Fishing Pole - 1/1
Neither one, IMO, is really overpowered. Consider that I've killed hundreds of skeletons in my most recent skeleton farm, and gotten only one gold chestplate out of them all, along with two gold helmets and a pair of iron boots (plus a bunch of leather junk). That would salvage to 8 (or 8-10) gold and 2 iron. I could have gotten that much in a relatively short time mining; in fact, I probably found at least that much while I was setting up my skeleton farm. I've gotten a bunch of bows, true, that would salvage into ... um, well, sticks and string. Let's say I've got 20 bows. That would be 20 (or 20-30) sticks, or what I'd make from (at most!) a single smallish tree, and likewise 20 (or 20-30) string, which I could have gotten if I'd been clearing an abandoned mineshaft, or if I could find a freaking spider spawner to farm them, in much less time.
So there's really no need to cut it down even further; it's already at a pretty minimal level.
Anyway, I strongly support the OP's suggetsi0n of this, and hopefully we'll see this in the future.
The golden age: it's not the game, it's you ⋆ Why Minecraft should not be harder ⋆ Spelling hints