Fundamental Issues with the Hawkeye Fortress Set

Rafs

Director-General of GreenTech
Apr 4, 2019
484
3,192
505
31
Hello, I'm here to discuss some concept issues with the new Hawkeye blocks.

Hawkeye Fortress Set

That new set of blocks was shown as a new way of building large and sturdy bases for a variety of purposes, and stretching the concept a bit into the realm of creativity we can also imagine slow moving tanks and fortress hover skyships.
These blocks would be the ultimate go-to for creating imposing monoliths, goliaths that the enemy must think twice before trying to breach the thick hull, but also immobile or so slow one can easily avoid it and better plan hit'n'run attacks.

Now, regardless of the size and shape of the Fortress blocks, we can safely assume they should be dense both in mass and health, just like Hawkeye blocks already are. That is the golden standard of Hawkeye blocks, they are all heavy and tanky, with the stats scaling accordingly with their size.

Now, let me share some useful data on the new Fortress blocks:

1655488400853.png

Pay attention to the density values for both mass and health, what do you see?

Both decrease as the block gets larger, reaching ridiculously low values.
Well, one can argue the values get dampened so as to prevent too much health and weight being concentrated on a single large block; but even then, notice that most start already low and then it only goes downhill.
Check the original Hawkeye golden standard for reference:

Hawkeye One Block
Mass: 1.5
Health: 450

See how dense it is? And those values increase linearly with each increase in Hawkeye block size, with the Two Block having 3 mass and 900 health, and so on. There is no density decay.
For original Hawkeye blocks you know when you get a larger block that the values have scaled as well, you know what you're getting. Your Tech will be heavy and tanky, regardless of the block sizes used.

The Fortress set should follow the well stablished Hawkeye standards, they shouldn't be so ridiculously light and low health, you're giving the wrong impression to the player that they're more protected when investing on those blocks. And their low weight densities mean they will feel much like paper when being handled around, including being a better block for light and fast techs even than venture blocks!

Fortresses are not supposed to zoom around at 150mph, they're not supposed to be so frail either (I lack the chart here but these blocks have higher than average chances of falling-off when damaged).
Fortresses stay put and tank hits.
That's what they do. That's what any player expects.
Fortress blocks need to be very heavy and very tanky to honour their concept, this can be done by simply using the Hawkeye Standard and not much else.

All this post was made so that I hope Payload can give the player what the player expects and wants from fortress blocks.
This feedback comes from me and some friends, from those of us in the community who can actually see these stats and care enough about them to speak out when needed. Most players can't or don't bother going after that data, they blindly trust Payload to do it right in every release, they expect the studio to follow the corps standards the studio itself made, not only visually but also stats-wise.

Lastly I'd like to compliment the constant high quality in the 3D models provided over every update; Rob, Oliver, Anton, Jason and the other artists are a guiding light for me to follow.
QA also does a good job but I would recommend having someone to review new blocks stats at least once, so that any values inconsistent with the corporations trends or other intuitive player expectations are notified to the Game Designer for an extra check before release. This will greatly reduce a lot of recent complaints of inconsistency such as the health of the big GC vtol rotors (which got an undocumented fix).

That's all, thanks for reading!
 
Last edited:

Zonko

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2019
317
200
440
I'd go one further.
All this is to stop people making unbreakable tanks out of huge slabs.

The solution is simple: Make them super tough, but also, insanely heavy.
There. Done.
Now they can make a really tough fortress, and they are useless for making mobile units out of.
 

Geocorp Jumper

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2016
336
218
445
I'd go one further.
All this is to stop people making unbreakable tanks out of huge slabs.

The solution is simple: Make them super tough, but also, insanely heavy.
There. Done.
Now they can make a really tough fortress, and they are useless for making mobile units out of.
Honestly, weight could solve a great many concerns with introducing otherwise overpowered blocks. Consider old suggestion threads for super large shield bubbles for bases, for example. The size would be overpowered unless the player was forced (either naturally b/c of weight, or through hard code) to make it stationary.

But before I get too off topic, for making base walls I think it a perfectly suitable solution to make the blocks absurdly heavy. Perhaps so heavy that even GC’s biggest wheels can’t carry them.
 

Zonko

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2019
317
200
440
honestly, they should just rename them from fortress to chassis blocks. Afterall, right now, the only good thing they are to be used for are for building super quick testbed, not in any way for a tank, much less a fortress.
Nah. I got a mod that makes a 8x4x2 truck chassis block, like 2 big one blocks together. Way better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sigil and Rafs

Tarkin

Well-Known Member
Nov 14, 2020
22
15
410
After the 1.4.19.1 Update, Fragility is still a major problem. One shot from a Hawkeye ship cannon, and the largest anchor of the set retracts and falls of like nothing, even the large fortress wall didnt hold two such shots. In my opinion, fortress blocks should not detach until they are so severly damaged that they are nearly broken.
 

Geocorp Jumper

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2016
336
218
445
After the 1.4.19.1 Update, Fragility is still a major problem. One shot from a Hawkeye ship cannon, and the largest anchor of the set retracts and falls of like nothing, even the large fortress wall didnt hold two such shots. In my opinion, fortress blocks should not detach until they are so severly damaged that they are nearly broken.
Seriously? Geez GC has normal blocks that are better than that. We’d be better off making forts out of GC blocks.
 

Tarkin

Well-Known Member
Nov 14, 2020
22
15
410
Seriously? Geez GC has normal blocks that are better than that. We’d be better off making forts out of GC blocks.
Just to avoid any misunderstandings, I mean the mk3 battleship cannon. But I found that disapointing to, especially since the Hawkeye Groundhog and Wrap armor withsatnds that better. In my test, the Groundhog armor tanks 4 mk3 shots and never falls of, while the largest fort wall tanks 5 shots but falls of after the first hit.
 
Last edited:

totally anonymous

Anonymous account for anonymous suggestion spammin
Feb 10, 2021
237
36
435
29
In an anonymous world of anonymous
Just to avoid any misunderstandings, I mean the mk3 battleship cannon. But I found that disapointing to, especially since the Hawkeye Groundhog and Wrap armor withsatnds that better. In my test, the Groundhog armor tanks 4 mk3 shots and never falls of, while the largest fort wall tanks 5 shots but falls of after the first hit.
Wait, what!?!? Thats worse than I thought. I thought it could only tank one hit, but it just falls off??
 

Firered-1987

The Other Stats Guy
Oct 9, 2020
13
23
410
I compiled the buffed fort blocks stats in the same spreadsheet as the old fort blocks stats, Payload has buffed them a fair amount,even going as far as changing the walls from standard type to armor which doubles it's effective health in most cases. they didn't change the Fragility of the blocks however which is unfortunate.1658982920684.png
 

Zonko

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2019
317
200
440
I compiled the buffed fort blocks stats in the same spreadsheet as the old fort blocks stats, Payload has buffed them a fair amount,even going as far as changing the walls from standard type to armor which doubles it's effective health in most cases. they didn't change the Fragility of the blocks however which is unfortunate.View attachment 37752
Well Shoot.
They should fix that.
Also, i think they should heavy them up a bit.
They are meant to be FORTRESS blocks after all.
An anchored base does not give a single damn about how heavy a block is, but a vehicle sure does.
 

Geocorp Jumper

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2016
336
218
445
An anchored base does not give a single damn about how heavy a block is, but a vehicle sure does.
Do they? I mean, I guess I do notice a difference when my wheels are over-burdened, but it’s a bit harder to tell these days. A few years ago, these annoying pop-ups would appear around your tech saying “yOuR WHeEls ArE OvERbuRDeNeD!” The wheels would also give off sparks while trying to drive. *shudder*… I get triggered just thinking about that time…
 

Firered-1987

The Other Stats Guy
Oct 9, 2020
13
23
410
Latest Unstable Buffed them yet again by halving their fragility value,(From 1 to 0.5)
This also includes the Fortress Ramp Blocks which i didn't include because i got lazy
1659764540269.png
 

Tarkin

Well-Known Member
Nov 14, 2020
22
15
410
I tested it again and think, they are much better now. The biggest block tanks 3 shots before falling of, which is still not completely satisfing but its good. A bit disapointing is, the the anchors retract themselves after the first hit. Eventhougfh they are better now, they are still not good durable enough for me, to prefer a landbase over a hovering one that can defend itself better due to a high altitude.
 

Zonko

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2019
317
200
440
Do they? I mean, I guess I do notice a difference when my wheels are over-burdened, but it’s a bit harder to tell these days. A few years ago, these annoying pop-ups would appear around your tech saying “yOuR WHeEls ArE OvERbuRDeNeD!” The wheels would also give off sparks while trying to drive. *shudder*… I get triggered just thinking about that time…
The popups were annoying.
They should pop up in training maybe 3 times.
Then after that, we see the sparks, that's all we need.

But yes, there is a level of overburdened, between the sparks flying, and actually useful.
This is why we need the big wheels, and not just hordes of small ones.
The wheels still give off sparks, but that's when they are really stuffed.
It's possible to overburden them, not to the point of bottoming out the suspension, but to the point of it not turning well, and not handling bumps/hills/etc at all well.

There are a few modded blocks, where the designer was not mucking about when they wanted to make it a base block, and even carrying ONE block on a vehicle with 8 of the biggest GC wheels was a big deal.
I think that's how heavy these blocks should be.

Even tougher than now. More HP. No falling off until JUST before destruction.
And like at least 10 times heavier.
Because if you make them tough enough to make good walls, but still light enough that they are portable, people are gonne use them on vehicles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Geocorp Jumper

Tarkin

Well-Known Member
Nov 14, 2020
22
15
410
Well, they will be used on vehicles no matter the mass, because of antigravity bubbles. I think, they should be usable on mobile base too, something that crawls with about 25mph 20 or more GC XL Continous tracks or so. I just think they shouldn´t be viable on normal techs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Geocorp Jumper

Geocorp Jumper

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2016
336
218
445
Well, they will be used on vehicles no matter the mass, because of antigravity bubbles. I think, they should be usable on mobile base too, something that crawls with about 25mph 20 or more GC XL Continous tracks or so. I just think they shouldn´t be viable on normal techs.
That would be a handy way to allow fort blocks to be used on mobile techs while not making them too powerful: add a hard speed cap to any tech using the fort blocks. Then no amount of antigrav or boosters or propellers could make fort blocks into an op tech.
 

Rafs

Director-General of GreenTech
Apr 4, 2019
484
3,192
505
31
TT simplifies the calculation of Drag by instead of taking into account Block Shapes, using Mass; while blatantly wrong from the physics perspective it is kind of intuitive for kids (in a kid oriented game) that adding a large heavy block will slow down any vehicle, land or air based (it is up to the science teacher to fix that in the future). Anyway, with that in mind, no amount of Anti-Grav will reduce that Drag value from Mass, which means heavy blocks will slow down any vehicle regardless of there being gravity or not, and there's also inertia and all.

I think fortress blocks could be heavier and have no fragility at all, but given that the devs already reviewed those values after community suggestions, I bet they know what they are doing for gameplay purposes and no amount of post-review criticism will change it.

I didn't play with the reviewed blocks yet but I hope that now they "feel" like what they should have been in the first place, I say within the game itself, beyond just looking at the numbers.

Thanks everyone who came here and gave their voices, without the feedback on fragility it wouldn't have been changed (I sent the suggestion to Matt after seeing it here, and then Payload fixed it).
 
Last edited:

Tarkin

Well-Known Member
Nov 14, 2020
22
15
410
I think fortress blocks could be heavier and have no fragility at all, but given that the devs already reviewed those values after community suggestions, I bet they know what they are doing for gameplay purposes and no amount of post-review criticism will change it. I didn't play with the reviewed blocks yet but I hope that now they "feel" like what they should have been in the first place, I say within the game itself, beyond just looking at the numbers.
I have to disagree, because after testing these blocks, I see no point in using them. I compared them to other Hawkeye Armors and from my perspective, I woukd just continue using GeoCorp Blcoks as Frames and put Groundhog Armor onto them. The only advange I can see now, is that the massive size of the biggest block shields the blocks behind against explosions, but that was never any problem for me with shieldbubbles and Groundhog Armor. In my opinion, Fortress Blocks should really be what they are named, the best blocks usable for the outer wall of a fortress and not just a better looking but weaker version of Groundhog Armor.
 

Geocorp Jumper

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2016
336
218
445
TT simplifies the calculation of Drag by instead of taking into account Block Shapes, using Mass; while blatantly wrong from the physics perspective it is kind of intuitive for kids (in a kid oriented game) that adding a large heavy block will slow down any vehicle, land or air based (it is up to the science teacher to fix that in the future).
Ugh, I’m not even a physics major and this just bothers me. Would explain why I’m finding it so hard to make a heavy bomber. I get that the mass will reduce the acceleration from the same amount of thrust, but mass really has little to do with top speeds and drag. At most, mass affects top ground speed via friction. What happens as we get more blocks with extreme mass-volume ratios? I presume, of course, that more of those will someday come.