Earthcomputer / EnchantmentCracker

Cracking the XP seed in Minecraft and choosing your enchantments
MIT License
1.04k stars 91 forks source link

Planned Enchantments Tasklist, and automatic-reordering (Feature request) #249

Open HaphLife opened 3 years ago

HaphLife commented 3 years ago

F: Planned enchantments “tasklist”. Once the player seed is cracked, we can enchant a lot of items fairly easily. The “how many thrown items do I need” search seems to be fairly low-resource compared to the reverse engineering of the RNG seeds. If it actually is, it might be worthwhile to have the user input all of the wanted items, rather than just one at a time, and then reorganize the order those wanted items to minimize required thrown items (and find that order via brute force).

For really long lists it might be hard to find the right order, but typically the player is more likely to want 20 duplicates of 5 item types than 100 unique enchantment combinations, which is much simpler and easier to brute force than the worst case "100 different items".

The UI for this list would look much like the current one, except instead of "generate" (or perhaps even just beside it) there would be a "add to list" button. Once the player has all the wanted items on a list, they would go to a new "tasklist" tab (to reduce clutter in the manipulation tab) and click generate there. It would then give them a list of all the items to drop, and enchantment levels and bookshelves in a table, like the current output, except repeated multiple times vertically.

It would also be nice if the player could remove items from the list individually, rather than resetting the whole thing.

Earthcomputer commented 3 years ago

Relates to #35 and #39

HaphLife commented 3 years ago

35 shows what is possible with the current seed, and #39 allows for presets of “favorite” enchantment combos. Neither of those are what I am talking about here. I’m talking about telling the manipulator all of the items I want to enchant right now, and them having it organize them into the optimal order. Though I guess if #250 doesn’t work, this isn’t particularly useful, and would only save a little time.

Earthcomputer commented 3 years ago

That's why I said "relates to", not "duplicates"

HaphLife commented 3 years ago

Fair. I’ll try to make future suggestions more distinct.