Jump to content

I finally found use for trader.


Recommended Posts

Fort is looong but only 1 block wide :) and hangs off indestructable trader area. 

As long as the moth is deep enough that the zed do not even reach to bottom pf the wall you are completely safe on the wall which is just outside the trader area so no night teleports while on the wall. And actually you can be few blocks inside the wall without being teleported at night. 

So wall is not needed but you get the material free when digging up the moat and it is fun to build. And you can even place a drawbridge on the wall if you want.  

image.thumb.png.a56d3b349066520f8b5c9da352198237.png
 

image.thumb.png.6aeed952822d88561653f291d0add7a1.pngDamn the placement of drawbrdge is buggy. :( Could not be bothered to chip away the 10k bridge and craft new one. 

steps up the wall.
Keep in mind the structural integrity as whole structure is hanging off a cliff. And also keep in mind you can not land claim trader area.
And remember to extend to bottom of the wall to fist stone block. 
You oould extend the wall all the way down bottom of the moat to give it more structural support but then you would need be fixing those blocks after every horde. 

image.thumb.png.58ad5c27160e4690cd77b8fb7456bf57.png
 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What matters is whether it results in fun horde nights. If it makes blood moon enjoyable then it is legit. If you find yourself bored and thinking of starting over to build a different base then it is a fail. I think building that wall and testing it out was probably the extent of the real fun so that was worth it to do once-- but would anyone always build their base this way and play through dozens of blood moons and find it enjoyable? I don't think I would and reading the OP's report of how it worked and looking at their screenshots was definitely interesting but also satisfies for me any itch to try it that one time.

 

Thanks for taking care of that for me. ;)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2021 at 5:09 PM, Mike06 said:

...you are completely safe...

 

Yup, you nailed it.  And that's why when they added trader protection, I hoped it would at least be a temporary, first pass feature until they could do traders 2.0.  It defeats the design goal that, if a player has the Blood Moon enabled, the zombies present them with a scaleable challenge.  And it defeats the design goal/game's own convention, that the world is 100% destructible down to bedrock.  I've talked at length about a better way to do traders, so that indestructible blocks aren't needed.  I still hold out a small hope that bandit NPCs can be done in a way such that traders don't need the absolute protection with its design-breaking consequences.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2021 at 11:45 AM, Junuxx said:

Also I'm curious why you didn't go for a bit more overhang to have more space on top?

Most likely didn't want to risk the structural integrity failing. As is it is hanging off the side of terrain blocks and has no direct vertical connection to bedrock anywhere in the built up portion of the "base". Extend it out to 2 or 3 blocks deep and the entire thing has a very good chance of collapsing.

Edited by hiemfire (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, hiemfire said:

Most likely didn't want to risk the structural integrity failing. As is it is hanging off the side of terrain blocks and has no direct vertical connection to bedrock anywhere in the built up portion of the "base". Extend it out to 2 or 3 blocks deep and the entire thing has a very good chance of collapsing.

 

OP said "And remember to extend to bottom of the wall to fi[r]st stone block", which I took to mean that the wall is suspended from stone blocks, not dirt blocks, which should be able to support a bit more.

 

I'm also kinda confused by your "very good chace of collapsing". SI is not a probabilistic system. Either it will definitely collapse or it definitely won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Junuxx said:

 

OP said "And remember to extend to bottom of the wall to fi[r]st stone block", which I took to mean that the wall is suspended from stone blocks, not dirt blocks, which should be able to support a bit more.

 

I'm also kinda confused by your "very good chace of collapsing". SI is not a probabilistic system. Either it will definitely collapse or it definitely won't.

For the first part, if you look there is a fair bit that isn't connected to stone, but to gravel and relying on the sections to the side of the gravel ones to provide support.

 

For the second part, very good chance = I'm not going to go through and estimate/calculate the varying amount of support provided by the stone and gravel spread across the entirety of a section of the walls when it is fairly plain that most of it is kissing the 8 block limit anyways.

Very good chance also = 7D2D doesn't always do its SI calculations consistently. Especially for builds that cross chunks and only get partially rendered when the player is nearby.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hiemfire said:

is kissing the 8 block limit anyways.

What is this 8 block limit...? I think I've seen it mentioned before, but .. it's not a thing?

Iron frames (and steel blocks) can carry the weight of 15 iron blocks, but will fail an SI test at the end of a line when attaching the 15th block collapsing both 14th and 15th block (a 14/15 block SI limit, and it seems to still(/again?) be the case that a player will count as the 15th block, causing the 14th to collapse when stepped on).

Stone can carry 12 stone blocks, and the whole line will collapse with the addition of the 13th (weight failure as expected at the carrying end).

Wood can carry the weight of 8 wood blocks, and fails similarly to stone above. If this is the limit you're using, then it wouldn't apply as the fort in question seems to be using stone(concrete) blocks?

 

Just tested in 19.5 b60.

Edited by theFlu
player "weight" added, and clarification (see edit history)
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, theFlu said:

Just tested in 19.5 b60.

Good info and thanks for testing, but what is the structural integrity/support capability of topsoil? That is the topmost layer that the wall is attached to (except where it is attached to asphalt or gravel). The cobblestone/concrete (I think the base was painted, you can see cobble colored plates on the "stair" portion) is attached to the top layer of ground, and last I knew that is the part where the calculations are done from since the wall itself does not have a direct line to bedrock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the sides of all blocks attached to bedrock are carrying the attached weight. You can create a massive stone platform on one steel support block surrounded by 4 steel blocks to spread the load.  (A single steel support attached to stone faces would be limited to the carry capacity of stone. Adding four steel blocks to the sides of the support increases the amount of stone-steel carrying points threefold, allowing you to carry roughly 1200 weight of stone, or 120 blocks)

 

As such, the plates will carry from the stone layer just fine, the dirt layers add a little, but not really significant (20 weight per face)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, theFlu said:

All the sides of all blocks attached to bedrock are carrying the attached weight. You can create a massive stone platform on one steel support block surrounded by 4 steel blocks to spread the load.  (A single steel support attached to stone faces would be limited to the carry capacity of stone. Adding four steel blocks to the sides of the support increases the amount of stone-steel carrying points threefold, allowing you to carry roughly 1200 weight of stone, or 120 blocks)

 

As such, the plates will carry from the stone layer just fine, the dirt layers add a little, but not really significant (20 weight per face)

?

1 hour ago, theFlu said:

If this is the limit you're using, then it wouldn't apply as the fort in question seems to be using stone(concrete) blocks?

It's oldish info, but it is the most recent I recall seeing other than your test.

https://7daystodie.fandom.com/wiki/Structural_Integrity#Strike_the_earth.21

https://7daystodie.fandom.com/wiki/Structural_Integrity#The_Magic_8_Block

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right below those examples "WARNING: A lot of this has changed since Alpha 13 and may not be relevant anymore."

It's completely outdated. Some of the concepts apply, but none of the numbers.

 

For your question mark.. I started to answer "how much does dirt carry (20 weight = 4 wood blocks = 2 stone blocks = 1 iron block) and ended up giving a condensed explanation of a part of the SI system. It's likely a little dense to read, just load up a new navezgame game and start messing with the creative menu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, theFlu said:

Right below those examples "WARNING: A lot of this has changed since Alpha 13 and may not be relevant anymore."

It's completely outdated. Some of the concepts apply, but none of the numbers.

 

For your question mark.. I started to answer "how much does dirt carry (20 weight = 4 wood blocks = 2 stone blocks = 1 iron block) and ended up giving a condensed explanation of a part of the SI system. It's likely a little dense to read, just load up a new navezgame game and start messing with the creative menu.

The question mark was me trying to figure out how the platform and horizontal "pole" examples would apply to a vertical column with 4 5 consecutive attachment points, 1 to stone and the other 3 4 to dirt/soil or gravel, and no direct line in the column itself to bedrock topped with other blocks. As for testing myself, I'll wait till A20 drops. They're changing what blocks are available to build with and the block upgrade path iirc so testing any block material types outside of those will be pointless. I'm not sure if they altered the capacities and weights on top of changing the upgrade path so even testing what blocks types we think are still there would very likely result in junk data.

 

Edit: I forgot it was 4 blocks of "soil" to get to the stone layer which would be layer 5.

Edited by hiemfire (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, waiting for 20 is likely smart; I doubt they're redoing the system though, so getting a grasp of the concepts wouldn't go to waste. As for how the pillar thing applies; the four faces of the pillar will each carry their worth of weight (iron types carry 300, 300x4 allows for that 1200). The same applies for vertical support faces that are supporting the same structure, in this case the dirt-dirt-stone combination all add to the maximum mass of the structure above.

 

Vertically the 14 block limit seems a bit finicky, I just stacked 28 wood blocks to the side of a wooden pillar from three support faces. It only collapsed once I messed with the bottom by adding support underneath and then removing - it got cut neatly at the 14th block.

 

EDITs: of, code editor looks bad, and a spoiler spoils it ... nevermind the editing ... :)

Edited by theFlu (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, theFlu said:

Sure, waiting for 20 is likely smart; I doubt they're redoing the system though, so getting a grasp of the concepts wouldn't go to waste. As for how the pillar thing applies; the four faces of the pillar will each carry their worth of weight (iron types carry 300, 300x4 allows for that 1200). The same applies for vertical support faces that are supporting the same structure, in this case the dirt-dirt-stone combination all add to the maximum mass of the structure above.

 

Vertically the 14 block limit seems a bit finicky, I just stacked 28 wood blocks to the side of a wooden pillar from three support faces. It only collapsed once I messed with the bottom by adding support underneath and then removing - it got cut neatly at the 14th block.

 

  Hide contents

 

 


s = support pillar

x = hanging frames

  28   x   x  sx  sx  sx  s  s

 

 

 

So you did (f=frame, sf=support frame, g=ground) :

    f28

    ~

    f20

    f19

    f18

    f17

    f16

    f15

    f14

    f13

    f12

    f11

    f10

    f9

    f8

    f7

    f6

    f5

    f4

sf f3

sf f2

sf f1

sf

 g g

And it broke at 14 after you triggered a recalculation by placing and removing a frame between f1 and the ground? Or did it break at "f17" in my diagram?

 

Edit: it changed ) : without the space into a frown emoji.

Edited by hiemfire (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had to go back and verify.. all these poor innocent wood frames :)

The f17 was the first block to get destroyed, only 16 blocks left - which is equal to the 13 free-hanging iron blocks in the horizontal case.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, theFlu said:

Had to go back and verify.. all these poor innocent wood frames :)

The f17 was the first block to get destroyed, only 16 blocks left - which is equal to the 13 free-hanging iron blocks in the horizontal case.

Hey, thanks for double checking. :) Looks like the "Magic 8 Block" is now the "Magic 13 Block".

Doing a rough calc 1 stone + 4 Dirt blocks has a total max mass capacity of 200. (120 for stone, 20 each for the dirt)

Using the OP as an example, the individual vertical sections (excluding the stairway, corner supports and drawbridge sections) each have a total of 44 mass (assuming 4 cobble or concrete and 1 wood) above the ground level and totals 5 blocks not attached to a support block (block with a straight line to bedrock). For those sections one could extend the base of the wall out from the support by a further 2 with an arrow slit connecting into a ramp (for an additional 8, 14 or 20 mass depending on the materials, excluding steel and iron) for 7 blocks total. That gives an additional 4 blocks worth of wiggle room if they want a roof on their hoarding, though it would mean that the wall sections are more vulnerable to collapse if a cop, demolisher or rad vulture knocks out one of the arrow slits. I doubt it'd work for sections depending on gravel (regardless of what the wiki says, gravel does not have the ability to support 500 mass on a face) or sand for support though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as the weight allows, nothing stopping one from turning it into a tunnel base, walls on each side, roof on top. I think I've seen one on the tubes... If needed, extend the support wall downwards, although I have no idea how far down the support faces will carry, may be a limit somewhere. Nor am I going to guess how it will fail .. :)

 

Your weights are a bit odd for the current iteration, atm they're 5, 10 and 20 for wood, stone and iron; but close enough for the concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, theFlu said:

Your weights are a bit odd for the current iteration, atm they're 5, 10 and 20 for wood, stone and iron; but close enough for the concept.

Blame the wiki... Using 5,10,20 the additional mass for extending it outwards by 2 blocks would be 10,15,20. 

Edited by hiemfire (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...