Battlefield wreckage....

[Peacemaker]

Ok, so I'd just like to see some wreckage stick around longer. Maybe make it so engineers can deconstruct wreckage, and measures are taken to prevent TOO much wreckage. For example if a reaver crashes into a field the system says to its self "Is wreckage present within 400 meters?" No? Make wreckage
Is wreckage present within 400 meters? Yes! Is area hot spot? Yes! Is wreckage present within 50 meters? No. Make wreckage!"

This way a courtyard or a battlefield would become filled with wreckage, usable as cover by infantry. Direct fire can destroy the wreckage or engineers can clear it (Considerably faster). Could make it easier to push out of a base into the court yard if you can make some extra cover. Itd also be cool to drive / fly past a battlefield with 10 destroyed tanks in a field that happened like 15 minutes ago. (Wreckage would deconstruct after 20.)

[Bags]

Add to that: Don't let softies push wreckage like they can now.

[PsychoXR-20]

I always wanted destroyed vehicles to hang around longer, they made excellent cover for infantry.

[DviddLeff]

Good idea, it just adds to the sense of chaos and destruction on the battlefield.

I also want wrecks to burn; smoke rising into the sky...

[Traak]

...and the wrecks to be impossible to move except by another vehicle of the same class. If a Vanguard goes down, then it would be immobile unless another Vanguard, Prowler, or Magrider bulldozed it out of the way.

[Firefly]

Leave it lying around as an obstacle. Particularly for urban area blockages.

[Manitou]

Agreed. This is critical, in my opinion, for the "immersion" aspect of the game. It also adds the need for newer tactics that take into account infantry movement within the wreckage.

Could engineers take the scrapped material and make obstacles, possibly?

[Robert089]

The amount of times I've been taking cover behind that destroyed AMS or tank just to have it decon and leave me in the open... I support this idea!

[Miir]

I like this idea as long as it doesn't affect game performance.

Would you want them to be cumulative? So you can push them into piles for road blocks/defense purposes? Like "damn the back door has 30 destroyed tanks in front of it again... we need a demo expert in here!"

Or

Would you have it so there is a minimum distance between wrecks so a ground troop could navigate through a battlefield full of wreckage strictly for cover?

[Firefly]

Would you want them to be cumulative? So you can push them into piles for road blocks/defense purposes? Like "damn the back door has 30 destroyed tanks in front of it again... we need a demo expert in here!"

It used to be a standard tactic to mine a back door area and then stack full ANTs at the back door. It was incredibly effective for ruining a back door drop. That got ninja-nerfed, and then there came a few effective counters such as an EMP + OS combo, and/or a Liberator tank-buster bombing run ahead of the drop.

[Canaris]

The amount of times I've been taking cover behind that destroyed AMS or tank just to have it decon and leave me in the open... I support this idea!

QFT :)

[TRex]

Nice idea ...maybe you could expand this idea and have common pool engineering vehicles ( like ant ) sort of like bulldozers to help clear said wreckage or mound it up . Could work if the game engine allowed you to climb up and over some of it.
If a tank blows up in a courtyard , for example , maybe said bulldozer could pick it up and throw it into a silo 'skip' to claim back some NTU's from it . Would be hand if a base was surrounded .
Maybe the whole engineering thing could include like irl ..build temporary bridges across gaps/ rivers and give it a whole new dynamic of support .
Heck , the mag-mower is dead , long live the bulldozer mower.

[Canaris]

Nice idea ...maybe you could expand this idea and have common pool engineering vehicles ( like ant ) sort of like bulldozers to help clear said wreckage or mound it up . Could work if the game engine allowed you to climb up and over some of it.
If a tank blows up in a courtyard , for example , maybe said bulldozer could pick it up and throw it into a silo 'skip' to claim back some NTU's from it . Would be hand if a base was surrounded .
Maybe the whole engineering thing could include like irl ..build temporary bridges across gaps/ rivers and give it a whole new dynamic of support .
Heck , the mag-mower is dead , long live the bulldozer mower.

You wouldn't need to add an entire vehicle for removing wrecks, what if instead the Engineers glue gun had a second setting that you can point at a wreck to speed up it's decon via nanites?
Wrecks could have a specific timer that they will eventually decon on there own due to the natural nanites around.

[Hamma]

I really like this idea as well, the way stuff decons is rather stupid sometimes. I understand why it's done and it would have to be a consideration in PSN as well.

I hate hiding behind things only to have them disappear and wonder if the enemies on the other side could even see the wreckage - was I kneeling in the middle of an open field? :lol:

[Raymac]

Holy shit, I can't believe everyone is in agreement on a topic. Well add me to the list. I'm Raymac and I support this message.

[Peacemaker]

Devs? Any devs? Common boys throw us a bone here! Were starving for information!

[Elude]

I support this idea however I think once wreckage has been sitting around for over a minute or two it should blow up, it should also blow up to explosive fire from tanks ect.

Small wreckage should also be either pushed around when hit by a tank or just blow up when hit by the tank without too much damage done to it.

[basti]

Ohh yes, awesome idea! A battlefield full of destroyed tanks! :)

the time stuff stays, and the amount of it, should depend on the players around. In a big zerg fight, only a few wrecks should stay longer than a few minutes. But if a big zerg fight just turns into madness and one side completly rushed the enemy, destroying alot of their vehicles and pushing forward to the next area, all those wrecks should stay. Not for minutes, for WEEKS! Until to many players are in the area, then the stuff deconstructs to make sure performance stays good. Why weeks you ask? In the off chance that one battlefield doenst see a big fight for some time, it would be awesome if a few players could just see the rest of that fight. Not for cover, or for XP or whatever, just for the "yeah, i was here when that happend" moment. :)

[Canaris]

Ohh yes, awesome idea! A battlefield full of destroyed tanks! :)

the time stuff stays, and the amount of it, should depend on the players around. In a big zerg fight, only a few wrecks should stay longer than a few minutes. But if a big zerg fight just turns into madness and one side completly rushed the enemy, destroying alot of their vehicles and pushing forward to the next area, all those wrecks should stay. Not for minutes, for WEEKS! Until to many players are in the area, then the stuff deconstructs to make sure performance stays good. Why weeks you ask? In the off chance that one battlefield doenst see a big fight for some time, it would be awesome if a few players could just see the rest of that fight. Not for cover, or for XP or whatever, just for the "yeah, i was here when that happend" moment. :)



Pte. N00Bie "Look at all the wrecks sarge, what happened here?"
Sgt. Vet "Something bad son, something very bad"

[Tikuto]

Wreckages could be nice, they'd also affect the battle scene. You'd always see a wreckage upon approach, and so you'd always see mess! Wreckages would have to counter-balance the instance and frequency of new vehicles and structures: Where one wreckage is 'entrench' and 'secure', other wreckages cannot 'entrenched' themselves there.
Where one wreckage is 'secure' it will stay there until hotspots are reduced to 5% near it. (this secures the wreckage as cover for all players)
Where a wreckage is 'secure', all players can demolish it. Doing this 'loosens' the wreckage and deconstructs within 5 seconds.

---

Salvaging could work on a specialized support vehicle. The Armor Siphon (http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Armor_Siphon) wasn't much use in the original PlanetSide. With the Armor Siphon it isn't really salvaging. It's deconstructing stuff into a by-product for little nanites to use unto, and thus I suggest "the field repair reservoir":

the Deconstructor Nanites Transport
In battle the DNT uses its Armor Siphons on wreckages and feasible enemy targets for nanites. The nanites use the materials to salivate unto friendly vehicles in the field. This gives nearby vehicles the appropriate nanites to repair themselves.

An astronomical industrial machinery originated from expansions of Wormhole research has now discovered its immediate use in the new world's Nanites culture. After several stages of wormhole testing revealed the benefits of its doubt. Assuming how Wormholes work, this machinery impartially uses that power to suck its target Half-Way Travelled into a mesh of material stored in its cargo.What this creates is an emphasise of a support role: repairing vehicles in the field, clearing wreckages and even supplying facilities with energy! It would also be a great target that'll pleasantly crush when you stomp on it. It could replace the old Advanced Nanite Transport! Give it an EMP blast whilst we're at it!

---


I am Tikuto and I dig this thread. :rock:

[Traak]

How about the wreck stays until you get a new tank? That way you wouldn't have people with multiple vehicle certs just piling wreckage higher and higher, with four of each making "dragon's teeth" or walls, effectively.

[basti]

How about the wreck stays until you get a new tank? That way you wouldn't have people with multiple vehicle certs just piling wreckage higher and higher, with four of each making "dragon's teeth" or walls, effectively.

Erm, that wouldnt work anyway because there is a max number of wrecks in a certain area. and even if you use all recources to build a wall, whats the problem? Let them build a wall i say!

[Traak]

Erm, that wouldnt work anyway because there is [IN THE PRESENT GAME MECHANICS, YOU MEAN, NOT THE NEXT GAME, WHICH IS WHAT THIS PART OF THE FORUM IS ABOUT?] a max number of wrecks in a certain area. and even if you use all recources to build a wall, whats the problem? Let them build a wall i say!

I'm talking about PS:Next. What game are you talking about? If you are talking about PS:Next, then you don't know how many wrecks are allowed in a certain area. If you are talking about this Planetside we have now, then you are in the wrong forum.

[Timantium]

I support this idea however I think once wreckage has been sitting around for over a minute or two it should blow up, it should also blow up to explosive fire from tanks ect.

Small wreckage should also be either pushed around when hit by a tank or just blow up when hit by the tank without too much damage done to it.

Exploding/burning wreckage should hurt infantry in the area as well. If we are going to have burning wreckage and smoke, shouldn't that effect the infantry "hiding" in it? Maybe we could have it burn for a few minutes, explode, then be burned out and safer for infantry use.

I would love to be able to stack burned out wreckage though. That would make bridge battles and choke point fights that much more interesting.



CENTER]---[/CENTER]
What this creates is an emphasise of a support role: repairing vehicles in the field, clearing wreckages and even supplying facilities with energy! It would also be a great target that'll pleasantly crush when you stomp on it. It could replace the old Advanced Nanite Transport! Give it an EMP blast whilst we're at it!

---

Can we make them look like garbage trucks?

[PsychoXR-20]

I support this idea however I think once wreckage has been sitting around for over a minute or two it should blow up, it should also blow up to explosive fire from tanks ect.

I would instead like to see the wreckage further damageable. For instance, a Prowler blows on its way into a facility and leaves its wreckage behind, knowing that the TR is probably using this for cover, infantry with AV, Vanguards, Enforcers (anything with an explosive shell) could fire at the wreckage and eventually destroy it. They could even have a few levels of damaged wreckage where it gets smaller and smaller until it eventually is destroyed, at which point it just decons into the air.

[Timantium]

I would instead like to see the wreckage further damageable. For instance, a Prowler blows on its way into a facility and leaves its wreckage behind, knowing that the TR is probably using this for cover, infantry with AV, Vanguards, Enforcers (anything with an explosive shell) could fire at the wreckage and eventually destroy it. They could even have a few levels of damaged wreckage where it gets smaller and smaller until it eventually is destroyed, at which point it just decons into the air.

I will repeat my question: shouldn't exploding wreckage (which I assume is the result of attacking "wreckage" with "anything with an explosive shell") hurt the people (read: idiots) using it for "cover?"

[Raymac]

I will repeat my question: shouldn't exploding wreckage (which I assume is the result of attacking "wreckage" with "anything with an explosive shell") hurt the people (read: idiots) using it for "cover?"

I must be misunderstanding you. Using cover makes one an idiot?

[Timantium]

I must be misunderstanding you. Using cover makes one an idiot?

If the "cover" is on fire and about to explode, is it really cover?

[Raymac]

If the "cover" is on fire and about to explode, is it really cover?

Of course not. Everyone that has played a shooter game in the last oh 15 years knows not to use red barrels as cover. So if the already exploded wreckage can re-explode, then it wouldn't be much use other than cosmetic. But since it is already blowed up, then a hunk of metal makes great cover. I'd prefer the latter.

[Timantium]

Of course not. Everyone that has played a shooter game in the last oh 15 years knows not to use red barrels as cover. So if the already exploded wreckage can re-explode, then it wouldn't be much use other than cosmetic. But since it is already blowed up, then a hunk of metal makes great cover. I'd prefer the latter.

Can you please reread the posts above in the thread, I think it would make a lot more sense if you did.

Summary:

Elude suggested we could blow up the wreckage with tanks or that some burning wreckage would blow up on it's own

Tikuto suggested we could use a vehicle to make the wreckage work for us or clear it out of the way

I suggested we could make wreckage burn for a few minutes and then explod, turning itself into "burned out" wreckage, which would be usable as cover and no longer dangerous to infantry.

PsychoXR-20 suggested that wreckage should be further damagable with AV weapons and "anything with an explosive shell."

I replied that wreckage that is explosive should not be used as cover, it should hurt infantry.

You chimed in and asked if you were an idiot for using cover, seemingly suggesting that I am an idiot for not knowing that cover is valuable.

I asked you if burning wreckage that is about to explode can really be called cover.

You agreed and suggested that wreckage should not be able to explode, it should be cover.

and now you are caught up.

[Raymac]

OK guy, turn down the douche-o-meter just a bit. I guess I did a poor job of explaining myself which happens alot.

Basically, as you know, there's a difference between destructable and secondary explosions. I like the idea of wreckage being destructable in the ways stated in this thread. I don't like the idea of wreckage being a secondary explosion, killing everyone using it as cover.

[Traak]

OK guy, turn down the douche-o-meter just a bit. I guess I did a poor job of explaining myself which happens alot.

I understood it.


Basically, as you know, there's a difference between destructable and secondary explosions. I like the idea of wreckage being destructable in the ways stated in this thread. I don't like the idea of wreckage being a secondary explosion, killing everyone using it as cover.

I wouldn't mind seeing a wreck too hot, whether radioactively, or thermally, to be in or too near for a while after it is blown up, after which it could be used for cover.

[PsychoXR-20]

I never said the damageable wreckage should explode, just that it should break, so that cover isn't indestructible until some sort of set timer runs out. I only said explosive shells since I very much doubt using a Gauss Rifle on a destroyed 14 ton heap of metal is going to do much.

[Peacemaker]

That would be great in a smaller scale game, but I think the games scale prevents from going into quite such detail. While the subject of a "Bulldozer" CE vehicle is something I think would be very cool.

It has a literal blade on the front of the machine. This blade is able to push wreckage, and also provide cover for the vehicle, and infantry and vehicles behind it. Designed for bridge battles it would detonate mines and have an incredibly high hit point for damage to the blade. The rest of the machine is mildly vulnerable.

[Hamma]

While I do agree with battlefield wreckage sticking around to be used as cover I do think that it's important that it disappears after a set time. Although that time should be much longer than it is now.

And it should not be a ticking time bomb.

[Tikuto]

I do think that it's important that it disappears after a set time.If that happens, it's not reliable as cover any more which is why two things are to be considered before it disappears: Vicinity Battling < 5%
Timer ## minutesWhen both are checked it would disappear. This secures the wreckage as cover.

[Hamma]

Not a bad idea.

The only reason I say that it should disappear is because it's not practical to have a field full of hundreds of burned out vehicles just because. The battle should be "Reset" the next time around.

[Baneblade]

Wreckage that sticks around is a great idea. There is no real reason to force it to auto despawn, but allow certain cert combination to access a wrecker vehicle.

Think about the impact wrecks would have on that retarded AMS farmer who insists on always parking it in the exact same spots. Or if wrecks clog up the CY (I hope there are no CYs like we know them now tbh).

But do allow vehicles to ram them, taking damage and possibly being bogged down too much to move the wreck further than a few meters.

[Peacemaker]

But do allow vehicles to ram them, taking damage and possibly being bogged down too much to move the wreck further than a few meters.

This. Also, I feel some of you may have missed something. The formation of the wreckage requires an auto check of the amount of wreckage near it. For example, 3 prowlers blow up in an OS. They are all within 100m of each other. A 4th and 5th prowler gets destroyed in the same area. Prowler #4 passes the check of "Are there more than 4 wrecks within 100m? No, *Create Wreck*" #5 fails to pass the check "Are there more than 4 wrecks within 100m? Yes, * Do not Create Wreck*"

This would prevent an ungodly amount of wrecks in a small area, would create clustered and unclustered wrecks, and make it so that there is not so many wrecks that infantry shooting into the battlefield (I.e. snipers) Have moments to engage a target as it moves from one piece of wreckage to another.

Wrecks would stick around longer in an avtive battle but would start showing NTU decay (Slower animation of what we have now as a wreck dissapears). This would give infantry in cover time enough to run to a new piece of cover.

[Timantium]

I never said the damageable wreckage should explode, just that it should break, so that cover isn't indestructible until some sort of set timer runs out. I only said explosive shells since I very much doubt using a Gauss Rifle on a destroyed 14 ton heap of metal is going to do much.

You're right, Gauss rifles wouldn't do much to a heap of wreckage. My question remains, how can we have exploding wreckage without it hurting the people hiding in it?

It's a retorical question guys, you can't use explosive rounds without causing an explosion... People who are hiding behind cover that is hit with explosions, explosives, explosive rounds or explosive shells should explode, or at least suffer damage from the wreckage that is exploding on them.

[Raymac]

It's a retorical question guys, you can't use explosive rounds without causing an explosion... People who are hiding behind cover that is hit with explosions, explosives, explosive rounds or explosive shells should explode, or at least suffer damage from the wreckage that is exploding on them.

I see what you are saying, and it's logical. Just to play devil's advocate for that, perhaps the wreckage would act like a F-1 race car in a crash where the energy of the destruction is disappated in all the little pieces, keeping the driver (or in this case the grunts using it as cover) safe.

I could see taking a little bit of splash damage when the wreckage gets destroyed, but nobody would use it if it was a full on secondary explosion.

[Timantium]

I see what you are saying, and it's logical. Just to play devil's advocate for that, perhaps the wreckage would act like a F-1 race car in a crash where the energy of the destruction is disappated in all the little pieces, keeping the driver (or in this case the grunts using it as cover) safe.

I could see taking a little bit of splash damage when the wreckage gets destroyed, but nobody would use it if it was a full on secondary explosion.

This is a fair argument for cover that is not destructable.

However, people are suggesting we have cover that is destructable and, further, that this cover not only be destructable, but destructable with explosive weapons.

Counter example: I am almost positive I could hurt someone hiding inside a formula one racecar if I shot it with a RPG.

My argument is that we either:

1. Give people a certain amount of time to use explosive weapons to cause that secondary explosion and destroy the wreckage (making it unusable as cover, or at least reducing it in size). After that time, have the wreckage "burn out" so people can safely use it as cover and it can't be destroyed or splintered.

or

2. Have wreckage not be destructable by weapons - this would mean empires would have to clear it with another vehicle or perhaps the garbage truck/bulldozer vehicle people have been talking about.

For me the bottom line is that burning or explosive wreckage is not effective cover, it in fact offers more danger to the people hiding in it than if they had no cover.

[Raymac]

For me the bottom line is that burning or explosive wreckage is not effective cover, it in fact offers more danger to the people hiding in it than if they had no cover.

I see what you are saying. I just think we are viewing the state of the wreckage in different ways. It seems you are seeing it in a more realistic way in that fresh wreckage is still very volitile. I'm seeing it more as the "burned out" state that you mentioned earlier.

So, the "burned out" wreckage can still be destroyed by the engineering ideas others have said, but it can also be destroyed by explosive rounds. By that I mean, tank rounds will take it down, but bullets will have no effect...almost like how tank armor is now.

Also, I think you are probably right about the rpg vs. F1....but I want to see that on youtube. :)

[Timantium]

I see what you are saying. I just think we are viewing the state of the wreckage in different ways. It seems you are seeing it in a more realistic way in that fresh wreckage is still very volitile. I'm seeing it more as the "burned out" state that you mentioned earlier.

So, the "burned out" wreckage can still be destroyed by the engineering ideas others have said, but it can also be destroyed by explosive rounds. By that I mean, tank rounds will take it down, but bullets will have no effect...almost like how tank armor is now.

Also, I think you are probably right about the rpg vs. F1....but I want to see that on youtube. :)

From a game mechanic standpoint, I think instant cover might be unfair. I think if we allow wreckage to be cover without some time stall to allow people to react to (and maybe negate)it, then it can be used too easily to gain a massive strategic advantage. I believe this is why we can no longer block the BD with ANTs and stuff right?

Furthermore, if we always allow wreckage to be destructable, then it won't really be good cover. If a tank acn roll up and blow up the wreckage, then that's not really effective cover for the people using it to hide from the tank.

So my middle ground solution is to have wreckage that is not immediately available as cover (allowing potentially for people to set up countermeasures for it), and then having that wreckage enter a more durable state (thus providing effective cover).

If people can destroy it so easily, then why waste the effort to introduce it into the game.

[Raymac]

So my middle ground solution is to have wreckage that is not immediately available as cover (allowing potentially for people to set up countermeasures for it), and then having that wreckage enter a more durable state (thus providing effective cover).

If people can destroy it so easily, then why waste the effort to introduce it into the game.

That makes alot of sense. I don't think it should be destroyed easily by like tank rounds, because you are right, it would be pointless. But using the engineering ideas floated out here should make short work of it.

I just like the idea of having more cover in field battles. I love being an AV grunt in those field battles, finding the right spot, making tanks run home to mommy, but there is so little cover out there sometimes. At the same time, I'm worried about the potential abuse of this mechanic. You bring up the perfect example of using ANT wreckage to block the back door.

[Baneblade]

Infantry need more cover options, scary tank drivers like me aren't intimidated by trees and the like. But a wreck is a whole different ballgame, especially if it is volatile enough to destroy a tank that might be around half health.

But then again, I don't think it would be so bad to have inert wrecks either. Maybe make them variable based on the vehicle that made them. ANT wrecks are mini OSes waiting to be set off (if it has NTU), AMS wrecks are jungle jims, and tank wrecks can potentially have unexploded ordinance.

[PsychoXR-20]

You're right, Gauss rifles wouldn't do much to a heap of wreckage. My question remains, how can we have exploding wreckage without it hurting the people hiding in it?

It's a retorical question guys, you can't use explosive rounds without causing an explosion... People who are hiding behind cover that is hit with explosions, explosives, explosive rounds or explosive shells should explode, or at least suffer damage from the wreckage that is exploding on them.

You're reading way to far into what I said. Would it make more sense if I said only large caliber rounds should be capable of destroying wreckage? 75mm, 100mm, 150mm, what ever the Magriders main cannon is classified as?

The only reason I said explosive was because anything in PlanetSide that could destroy a burned out tank is explosive, there are no large caliber non-explosive weapons. Explosive was a classification of weapons based on the game, not a generalization.

And if you don't like that answer, how about the simple fact that the wreckage would be protecting you from said explosive rounds?

[xuur]

I think it could be really handy for engineers and base defense geeks (like myself) to be able to deconstruct items into the 'ammo' they use for turrets and/or repairs etc. it would give them the need for tactical thinking in as far as 'leave that one there for cover and to block the gate' vs 'clear the area for squad ops and vehicle egress'. that sort of thing.

great ideas all

[headcrab13]

I agree with the OP 100%. This was a great feeling during bridge battles in PlanetSide, where there wasn't much cover and you were taking tons of sniper fire. You could deci an enemy tank and then use the burning hull for cover while you counter-sniped or advanced on the enemy, bounding from wreck to wreck. I can see all sorts of great impromptu gameplay coming out of this.

[nathanebht]

I'd be real happy, if PS2 had really realistic wreckage that stayed around for a good hour+ and acted as cover.

However they are talking about thousand player battles. Having wrecks disappear suddenly because the areas busy takes me out of a game somewhat. I remember in PS1 always trying to estimate when the tank I was hiding behind was gonna disappear.

I'd rather have battlefield wreckage that looked good but didn't act as cover and had no effect on gameplay. That way you could have lots of visible wrecks on screen if your PC had the horsepower for it. PS2 development would be simplified and it should be possible to have more players causing havoc in any one given area before we get server lag.

[Volw]

I'd rather have battlefield wreckage that looked good but didn't act as cover and had no effect on gameplay. That way you could have lots of visible wrecks on screen if your PC had the horsepower for it. PS2 development would be simplified and it should be possible to have more players causing havoc in any one given area before we get server lag.

So as you're trying to advance, it will obscure your view and allow the enemy to shoot through it? Not good.

[nathanebht]

So as you're trying to advance, it will obscure your view and allow the enemy to shoot through it? Not good.

If you didn't want to see the wreckage, you'd turn it off. Problem solved.

Supporting massive battles involving physics simulations sounds difficult enough without adding wreckage into the mix.

I'd rather have PS2 with wreckage missing, if it sped up the development and there was less server lag in large battles/larger battles were supported.

[ShowNoMercy]

Anyone else concerned about over-crowding caused by wrecks? or possibly people intentionally making barriers out of destroyed vehicles?

[Death2All]

If you didn't want to see the wreckage, you'd turn it off. Problem solved.

Supporting massive battles involving physics simulations sounds difficult enough without adding wreckage into the mix.

I'd rather have PS2 with wreckage missing, if it sped up the development and there was less server lag in large battles/larger battles were supported.

How would that work? If the wreckage is tangible object that you can take cover behind, how could you disable it? So if I don't like the ground in a game can I disable the ground and then just fly everywhere I want? Sounds pretty advantageous if you ask me.

[Bags]

They said in one of the multitude of interviews that wreckage right now will be hanging around for a few minutes, but they said they haven't finalized the duration yet.

[Hamma]

Aye what Bags said.

We asked about this during our time here, it's a delicate balance to leave the wreckage vs lag the game. I think this will be very much in flux through beta testing and on in to release.

It's just hard to leave stuff around with massive battles, every item has a cost to both the server and the client.

So while I dont see stuff disappearing instantly like it often does now I think it will disappear in a shorter duration than many of us prefer.

Sadly that may be the tradeoff to having a massive game.

[nathanebht]

Aye what Bags said.

We asked about this during our time here, it's a delicate balance to leave the wreckage vs lag the game. I think this will be very much in flux through beta testing and on in to release.

It's just hard to leave stuff around with massive battles, every item has a cost to both the server and the client.

So while I dont see stuff disappearing instantly like it often does now I think it will disappear in a shorter duration than many of us prefer.

Sadly that may be the tradeoff to having a massive game.

Exactly! If more and more people are funneling vehicles into a battle, those wrecks aren't going to be good for server performance.

I liked using wrecks as cover but them disappearing suddenly was just kinda lame. Would rather have wrecks that you can't use as cover and a client setting to adjust for how long they remain.

Some cinders and burnt parts on the ground would be fun to drive through while also enhancing the look. And wouldn't impact the server.

[bkx]

I've actually been thinking about this for a while... Wreckage should be a real tactical consideration. It needs to provide useful cover and should take a lot of fire before it breaks. On the other hand, battles around chokepoints will bog down if wreckage sticks around for too long.

How about if in addition to health, wrecks have an attribute called persistence? The idea is if there is only one wreck in an area, with a squad of soldiers behind it, the wreck will never despawn until it runs out of health. But if you are in the middle of a crowded bridge battle, with tanks dying left and right, wrecks will start despawning before they run out of health.

My technical description:
There should be a probabilistic formula that weights the number of wrecks in the area and the number of players very close by to each wreck. If there are a large number of wrecks nearby, there is a higher probability of wrecks despawning. But if there are lots of people nearby a wreck, it should have a very low probability of despawning relative to other wrecks in the area.