PC Why is concrete 6x stronger than stone?

[Dimpy]

From my personal experience, regular concrete(cement-gravel mix) is just about as hard to break with a hammer, if not easier, as naturally occurring stone, so it seems weird from the perspective of realism that concrete is so much more powerful in this game. Here are some possible reasons I thought of, even though they don't all make sense:

1. Concrete is harder to obtain, so it is more valuable and should therefore be better.
   
2. It's important that the player have easy access to the underground, so they can participate in minecraft-style quarry mining and underground base-building.
   
3. Smooth concrete is harder to claw apart by zombies because there aren't any good handholds.
   
4. Since zombies do so much damage late game, its important for high-level player to be able to mass-produce a strong building material to compensate.
   
5. Rocks just happen to be really strong where I live, or really weak in Arizona.
   
6. It would too be easy for early players to repel zombies by sitting on top of a rock formation.
   
7. This game is in alpha, and it's better for TFP to get content and frameworks set up, and seeing what works before tweaking numbers in the XML.
   

 

[Darthjake]

Stone can be 500 health, if you get a big stone it can be 1500 health, which splits into 3 500 health pieces. Concrete is 3000 health, lots of stone, sand, and water to bind it together. That's not too much of a stretch, imo. Then you get reinforced concrete which also adds Iron Rebar, and now goes up to 6k health. Again, not an unreasonable jump imo.

Now Flagstone only has 500, and Cobblestone goes to 1500 with wood being 2, 300? I can't recall it's been a while since I've used wood as anything other then spikes / frames / catwalk. I would like to have seen Flagstone be either a bit sturdier, or see the Z's have a reduced damage to Flagstone / Cobble / Brick / Concrete.

Mind you, I'm not holding my breath, but it'd be nice, and we may oneday mod a server to reflect that, but it's not a big deal at the moment. Once the Z's start attacking support pillars, then I'm going to be more concerned.

As for your points, I've aquired concrete mix on day 1 a few times, granted usually only 300 or so, but I have gotten some.

Dig a clay pit, mine out from there.

I'm fine with the Z's doing high damage, it's them being bullet/arrow sponges, that I hate.

Rocks are OP (joking, joking)

That's what modding is for TFP is getting the game out the door, if we want to make changes we can. (Well, I can't, but I know people that can.)

 

[LuckyStar]

From my personal experience, regular concrete(cement-gravel mix) is just about as hard to break with a hammer, if not easier, as naturally occurring stone, so it seems weird from the perspective of realism that concrete is so much more powerful in this game. Here are some possible reasons I thought of, even though they don't all make sense:

1. Concrete is harder to obtain, so it is more valuable and should therefore be better.
   
2. It's important that the player have easy access to the underground, so they can participate in minecraft-style quarry mining and underground base-building.
   
3. Smooth concrete is harder to claw apart by zombies because there aren't any good handholds.
   
4. Since zombies do so much damage late game, its important for high-level player to be able to mass-produce a strong building material to compensate.
   
5. Rocks just happen to be really strong where I live, or really weak in Arizona.
   
6. It would too be easy for early players to repel zombies by sitting on top of a rock formation.
   
7. This game is in alpha, and it's better for TFP to get content and frameworks set up, and seeing what works before tweaking numbers in the XML.
   

I'm sorry. Did I read that right?

You're talking about realism in the same paragraph you're mentioning zombies?

Come on.

It's a game play mechanic that works [for the most part].

Last I checked, you couldn't carry several tons of rocks [even the hard ones in Arizona] in your backpack.

Also, if you wanted to be pedantic and say rocks are harder than concrete.... THEY ARE.

Ever hear of diamonds?

We use concrete because it's strong, durable, weather resistant and we can shape it to whatever form we wish.

If there was a way to make liquid diamond for cheap then we'd be doing that ...... right?

 

[Dimpy]

If you get a big stone it can be 1500 health, which splits into 3 500 health pieces. Concrete is 3000 health, lots of stone, sand, and water to bind it together. That's not too much of a stretch, imo.

That's not how it works. Regular stone blocks only have 500 health. Boulders have 900 health(three stages of 300(?) health), but they take up around 4+ blocks of space, which makes them 13+ times weaker than concrete.

Now Flagstone only has 500, and Cobblestone goes to 1500 with wood being 2, 300? I can't recall it's been a while since I've used wood as anything other then spikes / frames / catwalk. I would like to have seen Flagstone be either a bit sturdier, or see the Z's have a reduced damage to Flagstone / Cobble / Brick / Concrete.

Why?

 

[LuckyStar]

I still don't know why people build flagstone.

I have seen that a few times on these forums.

People build flagstone then upgrade to cobble then concrete... etc etc.

Seems like a wasted step.

If you're digging the clay anyway.... just go straight to cobble.

Meh... whatever floats your boat.

 

[OldManBrian]

Personally I think there should just be a server\game setting for zombie block damage. I know there's a setting for block damage but that effects the player too which is pretty annoying for building\demolition on higher settings.

 

[Dimpy]

I'm sorry. Did I read that right?You're talking about realism in the same paragraph you're mentioning zombies?

Come on.

It's a game play mechanic that works [for the most part].

Last I checked, you couldn't carry several tons of rocks [even the hard ones in Arizona] in your backpack.

Also, if you wanted to be pedantic and say rocks are harder than concrete.... THEY ARE.

Ever hear of diamonds?

We use concrete because it's strong, durable, weather resistant and we can shape it to whatever form we wish.

If there was a way to make liquid diamond for cheap then we'd be doing that ...... right?

You've said making the game fun always takes priority over realism in the past; I've counted maybe three or four. That's an issue for another thread though. What's important is, can you provide any reasons why having easily breakable geologic stone makes the game more fun?

 

[OldManBrian]

You've said making the game fun always takes priority over realism in the past; I've counted maybe three or four. That's an issue for another thread though. What's important is, can you provide any reasons why having easily breakable geologic stone makes the game more fun?

Because from a gameplay perspective it would be extremely annoying to have to sit there forever with a pickaxe to clear land and/or mine it.

 

[Dimpy]

I still don't know why people build flagstone.
I have seen that a few times on these forums.

People build flagstone then upgrade to cobble then concrete... etc etc.

Seems like a wasted step.

If you're digging the clay anyway.... just go straight to cobble.

Meh... whatever floats your boat.

Sometimes cobble is overkill depending on base design and gamestage.

 

[Dimpy]

Because from a gameplay perspective it would be extremely annoying to have to sit there forever with a pickaxe to clear land and/or mine it.

2. It's important that the player have easy access to the underground, so they can participate in minecraft-style quarry mining and underground base-building.

So, would you say that you agree with #2? Yes, tasks that would involve breaking stone blocks would be more tedious, but that means is that you're more likely to scavenge for metal instead of mining and integrate the stone formations into whatever you were building instead of using a cookie-cutter design.

High durability blocks are just annoying in general, especially safes. Mining might become more fun with power attacks, but maybe something like the ability to speed up time would be convenient too. Of course, what would this game be without inconveniences?

 

[Scyris]

I still think its silly zombies can even punch thru stone/metal as a baseline, They'd get no where other than destroying their rotting limbs. Even wood would take a long time for someone to bust thru with their bare hands. Only 2 zombies that would be able to do decent dmg would be the cops if they suicide bombed, and the Wights as they bascally look like they are infected with the Tyrant t-virus.

But it is a game, in a game like this you have to do it for the gameplay. That said, I feel the zombies do way to much block damage.

- - - Updated - - -

So, would you say that you agree with #2? Yes, tasks that would involve breaking stone blocks would be more tedious, but that means is that you're more likely to scavenge for metal instead of mining and integrate the stone formations into whatever you were building instead of using a cookie-cutter design.
High durability blocks are just annoying in general, especially safes. Mining might become more fun with power attacks, but maybe something like the ability to speed up time would be convenient too. Of course, what would this game be without inconveniences?

On the mining power attacks: try fennec mod, most weapons and tools have a power attack, for the tools like a Mining pickaxe, the power attack uses double stam, but does I think over double its normal block damage. The weapon power attacks though seem worthless, no bonus headshot mult, but a health -30 debuff that I don't think even works on zombies, just like the club crit doesn't work on zombies either.

 

[Darthjake]

I still don't know why people build flagstone.
I have seen that a few times on these forums.

People build flagstone then upgrade to cobble then concrete... etc etc.

Seems like a wasted step.

If you're digging the clay anyway.... just go straight to cobble.

Meh... whatever floats your boat.

Because they, (TFP), took the cobblestone frame out, so you have to build with flagstone first, and depending on what you have your days set at, some of your base may still be flagstone as you are trying to upgrade.

 

[LuckyStar]

You've said making the game fun always takes priority over realism in the past; I've counted maybe three or four. That's an issue for another thread though. What's important is, can you provide any reasons why having easily breakable geologic stone makes the game more fun?

It isn't an issue for another time.

Is IS the issue.

You're asking why something is the way it is and your hearing why... you just don't like the answer.

TFP picked a progression of elements in their game based on what they felt the audience would enjoy.

This doesn't need to reflect real life, it needs to be fun.

There's a reason why games don't generally include going to the bathroom [sims are an exception], it's not fun!

How about clipping your toe nails? Not fun.

TFP chose cobblestone to represent something achievable before concrete. Concrete is the upgrade.

In their design they made stone available to day one players by having something you can mine with a stone axe.

If it's too hard to mine with a stone axe... how does a person even get to iron or steel?

Should TFP now redesign the entire tool structure because YOU live in Arizona where rocks are hard?

How about you explain why Rock should be harder than concrete from a game play perspective.

 

[Dimpy]

It isn't an issue for another time.Is IS the issue.

You're asking why something is the way it is and your hearing why... you just don't like the answer.

TFP picked a progression of elements in their game based on what they felt the audience would enjoy.

This doesn't need to reflect real life, it needs to be fun.

No, this is a more complex issue, and it depends on how narrow of a definition of fun you use. Fun is important, but great art is judged by more than just it's ability to stimulate a singular emotion.

There's a reason why games don't generally include going to the bathroom [sims are an exception], it's not fun!

How about clipping your toe nails? Not fun.

Granularity is different from realism. Also, those things don't fit the theme and setting of the game as well as, say, tearing up a shirt and using it as a bandage to avoid infection.

TFP chose cobblestone to represent something achievable before concrete. Concrete is the upgrade.

In their design they made stone available to day one players by having something you can mine with a stone axe.

I was not talking about flagstone and cobblestone when I said "stone". I have no problem with them being weaker than concrete, since they're half made out of clay. I was talking about the smooth 'pure' stone that you find underground or in large formations aboveground. What I was wondering was why that stone was so much less durable than concrete, since solid concrete is essentially just another type of rock.

If it's too hard to mine with a stone axe... how does a person even get to iron or steel?

Should TFP now redesign the entire tool structure because YOU live in Arizona where rocks are hard?

Use boulders? Go to a junkyard? Wrench cars? Find aboveground veins? Buy it at a trader? Scavenge it from POIs?

I never said I lived in Arizona. That was a reference to the fact that Navezgane is located in there.

How about you explain why Rock should be harder than concrete from a game play perspective.

First of all, I don't think it should be necessarily harder, just a little closer. As for some possible things it could do:

1. Underground bases are harder to make. Other threads have argued about whether this is a good thing or not.

2. Players are encouraged to make use of their environment more when building, which leads to more variability in the types of bases you'll see.

3. Less Swiss Cheese digging from zombies.

Stone is more scarce late-game which means:

4. Piles of destroyed stone and cinder blocks become useful again, leading to interesting adventures.

5. Scrap metal walls become more viable compared to cobblestone.

Just a few ideas that I don't feel super strongly about, but I haven't heard anything yet that will make me change my mind.

 

[LuckyStar]

No, this is a more complex issue, and it depends on how narrow of a definition of fun you use. Fun is important, but great art is judged by more than just it's ability to stimulate a singular emotion.

Granularity is different from realism. Also, those things don't fit the theme and setting of the game as well as, say, tearing up a shirt and using it as a bandage to avoid infection.

I was not talking about flagstone and cobblestone when I said "stone". I have no problem with them being weaker than concrete, since they're half made out of clay. I was talking about the smooth 'pure' stone that you find underground or in large formations aboveground. What I was wondering was why that stone was so much less durable than concrete, since solid concrete is essentially just another type of rock.

Use boulders? Go to a junkyard? Wrench cars? Find aboveground veins? Buy it at a trader? Scavenge it from POIs?

I never said I lived in Arizona. That was a reference to the fact that Navezgane is located in there.

First of all, I don't think it should be necessarily harder, just a little closer. As for some possible things it could do:

1. Underground bases are harder to make. Other threads have argued about whether this is a good thing or not.

2. Players are encouraged to make use of their environment more when building, which leads to more variability in the types of bases you'll see.

3. Less Swiss Cheese digging from zombies.

Stone is more scarce late-game which means:

4. Piles of destroyed stone and cinder blocks become useful again, leading to interesting adventures.

5. Scrap metal walls become more viable compared to cobblestone.

Just a few ideas that I don't feel super strongly about, but I haven't heard anything yet that will make me change my mind.

Okay well the first half of your response I'm not sure you said anything... think I'll just move on.

You give some reasons for making rock harder but can't say you made the sale there.

Not really all that compelling.

Whatever the case, TFP decided that rock is going to take a certain effort and concrete would take more.

Does it reflect real life .... probably not.

Is it fun... yep.

Here's the best part... you can Mod it.

Just edit the XML's and make all rock from Arizona. Voila!

You can be happy.

 

[Benjiro]

Stone can not be manufactured ingame so the comparison between a mining resource and craft able resource does not always stack ...

Technically rock indeed needs to be harder but you try explaining to people that they need to dig into 6000HP rock for mining.

I have nothing against stronger stone but comparing 500HP vs 6000HP, is too much.

Do NOT give TFPs any more ideas, because knowing how sadistic they are, they may actually implement something like increasing stone to 6000HP.

 

[Dimpy]

Whatever the case, TFP decided that rock is going to take a certain effort and concrete would take more.

Does it reflect real life .... probably not.

Is it fun... yep.

Are you sure you're still not talking about cobblestone?

Do NOT give TFPs any more ideas, because knowing how sadistic they are, they may actually implement something like increasing stone to 6000HP.

That's what I love about this game

 

[LuckyStar]

Do NOT give TFPs any more ideas, because knowing how sadistic they are, they may actually implement something like increasing stone to 6000HP.

Amen!

 

[Sythalin]

I still don't know why people build flagstone.
I have seen that a few times on these forums.

People build flagstone then upgrade to cobble then concrete... etc etc.

Seems like a wasted step.

Answer: Construction XP

 

[LuckyStar]

Answer: Construction XP

You can hit and repair sand and gain exp a lot faster.

Not sure that's why people use Flagstone.