Tool improvements

Been getting the feel for 112 lately, testing the new block placement and enjoying the new persistent block damage and thought to myself, “block breaking should be as smart and predictive as block placing.”

My proposal takes advantage of the persistent damage and the way that blocks only crack when the tool impacts the block (unlike pre-112). It would significantly speed up long digging projects if when you break a block, the block directly behind it (or, the block your cursor is on after the current block is cleared) was already damaged slightly.

Example: stone takes 3 swings to break. Breaking two stones individualy would take 6 swings, but if I line them up and dig through them, it only takes 5 because breaking the first stone leaves the second with one damage on it.

It’s a small thing, but would make mining and or clearing large areas feel faster and smoother.


Like the better block placement method something like this would give the feeling of playing a smart and thought through game :wink:

1 Like

Say we had a tool that did “10 damage”, and a block that took “4 damage” to break. Would we want to tool to destroy the 1st and 2nd blocks, and half damage the 3rd block?

Think this is a variation on what you’re suggesting, but wanted to understand if this would be more or less desirable (for obvious reasons.)


It is honestly hard to answer that without play testing it, but I am skeptical about a tool that outright breaks blocks beyond the players imidiate view. I would be more in favor of a tool that broke a wider 2x2 pattern and cracked everything surrounding it. Tools should ramp up, speed up, or spread wider, but never break blocks you can’t see.

1 Like

Definitely something for @olliepurkiss to consider for the future tool developments.

Thanks for sharing!


So Ollie is who I need to bother about tool ideas? Noted.

I like this idea a lot,nice job!!

Hi guys,

Nice idea! We’ve been looking at some tool stuff this week, and we definitely want to have some interesting behaviours for them.




I like the idea. It depends how you look at it, swing a hammer at the voxel means your swinging at a part of the ground, so for other nearby voxels to take damage you need to use a tool with a wider area, at the moment, given the size of the voxels and tools the one block at a time thing works for me. When using the hammer why should those other voxels take damage? if the voxels were smaller i’d understand because you could hit more than one voxel with a swing.

Trees however should fall if you take away the base block, that makes sense to me.

I’m all for being able to damage more than one voxel but a different tool would be a better way to implement it imo. For example hammer=1, drill=1 but damages 2 voxels back with a delay so first block takes full damage and decreases as you go further back . Would be cool to have explosives too, so dynamite could be used for clearing large areas? An offset for this could be you get unrefined materials requiring you to refine all the blocks, or less materials in total. Now im digressing.

Anyway cool idea!

1 Like

I intended the damage to be to the next block in series, not perpendicular. Think of it as penetration damage, the block behind the one I am hitting would take damage so that when I start hitting that next block, it takes less swings to break it. Blocks not in line with my hammer swings would not be damaged.

I understand that you meant the block behind. My point was why should the next block take any damage at all? The voxels currently represent quite a decent amount of ‘stuff’, for the block behind to be affected then it should be a stronger tool/stronger force. Thats my point.

1 Like

Oh I see, well mostly I feel that damaging the next block would assist in continuous mining and as @TheBirne put it, gives the feeling of smarter game play. As I said in the OP, breaking blocks should feel as smart as the new tech for placing them.

Yeah it definitely would be easier, would be cool though if the reason for that increase in mining speed was due to a different more efficient tool of some sort, rather than just the hammer now mines more for no reason.

1 Like

It’s not mining more for no reason though. It’s simply transferring a little damage to the next block so that it takes 1 less swing to break.

Hammers (especially a stone hammer as big as the one in game) are a brute force tool and as such, the damage passes through to the next block.

Example, imagine (don’t do this irl) putting on a hard hat, then have somebody drop a brick on your head from 10 ft up. The hard hat would break, but your head would probably be cracked too.

now make the hard hat 1 meter thick, you won’t feel anything (The weight of the hat itself aside). That’s what I think he wanted to tell you.

1 Like

Now smack it with a hammer until it breaks. Eventually, you’ll have a splitting headache.

yea but to make it similiar to the game your head/skull would also have to be 1 meter thick. And such a thick skull wouldn’t be cracked by just breaking the helmet.

1 Like

Kinda! What i’m saying is that given the amount of material represented by the block in game, the hammer shouldn’t damage the block behind. They represent about a metre cubed of stuff.

Odd comparison and I doubt the hat would break, more likely the neck would, necks are fragile.


Was the first example, uh… off the top of my head…

You could make the example work^^ but you’d have to adjust more and more of the “body” and in the end you’d end up with 1m^3 cubes instead of a body and a head xD