The vault and ominous vault have a weird behavior. In theory one vault can only be opened by each player once, but "each vault keeps track of up to 128 unique players that have opened the vault. If another player opens the vault, the first known player who opened the vault is forgotten, and can open the vault again." Note that this behavior is deliberate in the code.
This is creating an unprecedented case. A renewable resource is defined as "a resource that can be recreated indefinitely in Survival without exploiting glitches or using cheat commands". In theory, the items ejected by the vault (and ominous vault) qualify for this definition, and this is important since some valuable resources (like diamonds) would be renewable under this definition. However, this cannot be achieved in singleplayer or multiplayer, if you do not have at least 128 friends. I propose we should add a special case to renewability. This would create a new section in the renewable resource page to place the items that can only be renewed through the vault (and ominous vault) in a separate section from the other renewable items. In the infobox of any item from the former set of items, the renewability would be marked as "No ([[Renewable resource#Vault|except vault]])".
Edited: These are the items that are vault-renewable:
๐ Image
Support as proposer. --GIM Dianliang233 T C 09:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- ๐ Image
Support an indicator for the vault, however I don't think "No" is the correct value. It should be "Yes[requires multiplayer]" or similar. The item is definitely renewable without glitches or cheat commands after all, it just requires multiplayer or opening the same local singleplayer world while logged into different accounts. -- ๐ Image
MarkusRost (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be incorrect to say that it requires multiplayer since you can open "the same local singleplayer world while logged into different accounts". Also oppose making it a tag, parentheses work fine. GIM Dianliang233 T C 10:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the indicator text would need something better. I was mainly referring to "Yes" being the correct renewability base value, not "No" like in your proposal. -- ๐ Image
MarkusRost (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- ๐ Image
Keep in mind however, that the vault drops are not finalized yet. So keep everything in this list as temporary candidates. - Jack McKalling (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, this is a really good reason to wait until 1.21 comes out before we implement the proposed changes. That way, we won't have extremely confusing
No (except vault)s everywhere.
- ๐ Image
Support using the proposed method. - Harristic / Talk ๐ Image
20:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Why not this?
Yes ''<sup>via [[Renewable resource#Vault|vaults]]</sup>''
- I think "Yes" makes more sense than "No". If we are going to call the sculk catalyst renewable by killing wardens, then why not call these other items renewable too.
- Also, diamond armor and tools are only renewable through the vault when using the Villager Trade Rebalance experimental feature.
- So, in the future, we might have to change the armor, shovel, hoe, sword, axe, and pickaxe pages accordingly.
- Also, why are common armor trims so expensive?
- --Simanelix (T|C) 22:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- You use "Yes" for catalysts because, well why wouldn't you? They're renewable through killing a mob in vanilla, wardens are easily mass farmable with basic farms. Catalysts are also only one item, the vault thing affects tons of items, most notably diamonds.
- Vaults require you to be playing multiplayer, which for our purposes I wouldn't consider as vanilla as singleplayer, and either 128 different people or 128 different accounts. Now, my opinion does a change a bit based on if making additional minecraft accounts costs money or not (google just doesn't want to give me a straight answer...). If it costs money then vaults are only a method of renewability to a millionaire and that's about it, if they don't cost money then this is still an absurdly extreme edge case of renewability, but it's at least possible for anyone to do (I think?). But either way, as long as there's a note there it should be fine. I just think it's better to say "This item is not renewable, apart from if you get 128 accounts to open vaults" than to say "Yes this item is renewable, but, actually not really because you need 128 accounts". - Harristic / Talk ๐ Image
15:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Accounts are both free and optional on Bedrock Edition at least, it would be relatively easy to take advantage of a stored players limit on your own if you wanted to (if time-consuming and not particularly rewarding). ...I don't know if anybody's actually confirmed what BE's limit is yet, though, that info will probably be important to any vault renewability indicator that is added. โฟShadowMistressโฟ t+c 20:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Harristic:, it sounds ike you really oppose my proposal. --Simanelix (T|C) at 22:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC).
- ๐ Image
Oppose - After reading Harristic's reply, I now oppose my own idea. --Simanelix (T|C) 22:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC).
- I feel like I would agree with both versions, either "Yes (only through vault)" or "No (except through vault)". It really depends on one's personal preferences to choose which is better. But the note is absolutely needed in some form. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- If this is a reply to my comment, then you should increase its intendation. --Simanelix (T|C) 23:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- ๐ Image
Strong support - This is an unprecedented case, and I believe we should indeed make it clear that it's a unique case. I think it should be along the lines of "No except through the vault," because it's simply infeasible to farm loot through vaults without more people than is reasonably viable. It's also completely impossible in singleplayer, which is a version many play. - BD (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- ๐ Image
Comment about the wording:
- We should use the noun "vaults" and not "the vault". The reason for this is that 1 vault would be far less practical than multuple vaults. If someone was going to farm things like this, they would find 4 trial chambers that are all really close to the same 4 region corner, and they would also look for trial chambers that each have more vaults than average. Then, they would have a setup using slime blocks or minecarts to move players around automatically.
- We should probably add a word between "except" and "vault". The phrase "except through vaults" is kind of good, but it doesn't give the noun "vaults" a verb. The phrase "except by using vaults" is therefore better.
- --Simanelix (T|C) 23:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- ๐ Image
Comment about the formatting: I think we should use italics, or maybe even just use a footnote.
- A footnote would look like this:
No <sup>[[/References| [1] ]]</sup> -> No [1]
- The italics would like this:
No <sup>''(except by using vaults)''</sup>
- --Simanelix (T|C) 23:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am now thinking that it would be better to just have the infobox link to the renewability section if it exists, and only display "No" if there are no methods at all. As discussed at MCT:Style_guide/Features and the previous discussion linked in the first post there, the "Yes/No" infobox field is not very meaningful, as for example the Wandering Trader technically makes something renewable but is usually impractical compared to using other (non-renewable) methods, and some blocks and items are only renewable due to a technicality.
- With this in mind, "vault-renewable" items would just have the infobox link to a "Renewability" section that explains this case. Having more than 128 players on a survival server honestly sounds like a niche case that doesn't apply to most people, so "No (except vault)" is also kind of misleading. โโ Sonicwave talk 23:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think a note is definitely needed. The field is wiki created and not very meaningful as it includes some extremely impractical methods, however I think exactly that is the reason why we should have the vault with a special note. It's using neither mods nor commands after all. There are also enough survival multiplayer servers out there with more than 128 unique players. -- ๐ Image
MarkusRost (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- ๐ Image
Comment Isn't blackstone already renewable though, thanks to piglin bartering? -- PanchamBro (talk โข contributions) 12:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- ๐ Image
Should Wait - Vault and Ominous Vaults are still experimental features and are not final (this means that its behavior can be changed in the future) as the entire 1.21 snapshots, pre-releases and release candidates are pending. So, I think we should wait for 1.21 to officially release before making a decision. -- ๐ Image
StizzurpXDD(talk) 13:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- ๐ Image
Oppose. There's no need to write the way or condition to obtain it, or vault will be an exception. Therefore, we should write "Yes" only. ๐ Image
Wilf233zhMCW๏ผ่ฎบยทๅ๏ผ 17:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just plainly stating "Yes" would be very bad I think. No matter whether its feasible or not, being told that something is renewable only to find out (or simply not find out) that you need to make alt accounts to renewably farm it is just strange. This is pretty clearly an extreme edge case of renewability, the diamond page should not simply state diamonds are renewable because of this vault thing. - Harristic / Talk ๐ Image
18:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Then we had better write all the way to renew every renewable items. I don't think exception for vault is good, since we have to discuss about them every time a new but weird renewable way is added to the game. ๐ Image
Wilf233zhMCW๏ผ่ฎบยทๅ๏ผ 08:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- ๐ Image
Support. Mojang has said many times that Vaults intended use is once per person. To me, creating 128 accounts or organizing 128 players on a server to flip a vault is the classic definition of an exploit by video game standards. "No" with an exception type note feels most appropriate to me. -BrianGLHF (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- This makes sense. Nixinova โโT โ C 03:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- ๐ Image
Support Vaults are categorically different from any other renewability method in the game, the only comparable thing was back when Notch dropped red apples. I would note that you need 129 accounts, not 128 like people keep saying, also, ominous bottles are fully renewable anyways.--CrCl3 (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- ๐ Image
Support making a note, but ๐ Image
note that this is in Java Edition, because vaults don't forget people on bedrock (I think). Also, if diamonds are renewable, then in Bedrock Edition netherite upgrades are renewable. We do need to specify editions, not just in this. (I'm seriously sick of added edition exclusive templates.) Another note: diamond armor is still renewable without vaults and with the rebalance because mobs can spawn with it. Nerdyguy2000 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- ๐ Image
Support as long as itโs ๐ Image
No (except...) Vaults were definitely not meant to be a way to get infinite resources, especially in this hacky way. โ BabylonAS 19:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
