Destructable Environment

[Alox]

How destructible is the environment going to be?

I really love the way it is done in Battlefield, where you can shoot down trees, houses and make holes through walls.

I imagine that there can be some challenges with making this work in a persistent world without some scheme for repair/rebuild. But it will really add to the feeling of the battles - so heres for hoping that some destructibility will happen in Planetside 2.

[Volw]

How destructible is the environment going to be?

I really love the way it is done in Battlefield, where you can shoot down trees, houses and make holes through walls.

I imagine that there can be some challenges with making this work in a persistent world without some scheme for repair/rebuild. But it will really add to the feeling of the battles - so heres for hoping that some destructibility will happen in Planetside 2.

That's not the biggest challenge. THE issue is writing a netcode capable of synchronising all of the destruction happening to all clients.

[Kietharr]

Not going to happen. If it was in, it's the sort of feature that would've been announced already. As the poster above me said, the netcode issues would be horrific.

[Lunarchild]

Well, they did say that anything player-created can be player-torn-down. So if an outfit put a tower somewhere, someone else can in fact destroy it ^^ But that's long term plans.

[Volw]

Well, they did say that anything player-created can be player-torn-down. So if an outfit put a tower somewhere, someone else can in fact destroy it ^^ But that's long term plans.

there is a 'slight' difference between being able to destroy something and being able to punch holes through buildings....

[MgFalcon]

I could a shitstorm of lag if all the environment was destructible, nevermind all the explosions and gunfire and laZerZ, and pew pew, and explosions!

[CutterJohn]

there is a 'slight' difference between being able to destroy something and being able to punch holes through buildings....

Nope. Games that do destructible environments in multiplayer just use damage models. There is no simulated breakage of parts like the digital molecular matter, just the mesh swaps. The damage is identical to everyone, and identical every time its damaged. The particle effects/rubble are different depending on settings, but those are just graphical only.

Breakable walls would be little different than a door.

It would not be a network issue unless there was a lot of it. It is, however, a big content creation issue, as well as a balancing issue.

Craters can be done pretty easy too. Heightmap alteration. Just slap a decal there and it changes.

[ShowNoMercy]

a destructible environmental wouldn't work in a game that has unlim ammo

[Traak]

a destructible environmental wouldn't work in a game that has unlim ammo

Yeah, it would because it still uses up the most precious commodity in Planetside: time.

[PsychoXR-20]

10 minutes after the game launched the world would be in ruins, there would be no more tree, no more walls, no more buildings.

How would you handle re-spawning of world objects? Do tree grow back slowly? Do they just pop back up at the stroke of midnight. When do walls, and bases re-spawn? Is it left up to the engineers to rebuild the world? Do bases magically re-build themselves the instant they are captured by a different empire?

A destructible environment just would not work in a persistent, endless game. It works in battlefield because the game is based around rounds. Every round resets everything. PlanetSide doesn't have that luxury.

[Bags]

As hilarious as it is to accidentally kill myself in Crysis with a falling tree, I don't think it would work too well in Planetside.

[Redshift]

the number of players in PS you could reduce a base to slag and rubble in a few minutes, i'm not sure it would work well

[Hamma]

Yea this won't be in the game at release for sure, there are just to many variables to consider.

[Malorn]

10 minutes after the game launched the world would be in ruins, there would be no more tree, no more walls, no more buildings.

How would you handle re-spawning of world objects? Do tree grow back slowly? Do they just pop back up at the stroke of midnight. When do walls, and bases re-spawn? Is it left up to the engineers to rebuild the world? Do bases magically re-build themselves the instant they are captured by a different empire?

A destructible environment just would not work in a persistent, endless game. It works in battlefield because the game is based around rounds. Every round resets everything. PlanetSide doesn't have that luxury.

Generally this is the big problem with MMO + Destructive environment yes. There are ways they could regenerate the terrain, such as when no players were around it, but its still problematic.

Its a shame though because after playing BFBC2 and with BF3 having even more, destructible environment totally changes the game in a positive way.

But it would be very hard to work in a persistent world. There are ways but none that would work well if the territory was actively in use and the more players there are the worse it gets.

[Lonehunter]

Yea this won't be in the game at release for sure,
I thought I heard one of the devs in a Q&A video say, something like it may be in further down the line. But they may just be referring to the outfit bases or sandbox type content. Not "destructible" like Battlefield

[Bags]

For reference, does Battlefield have more or less destroyable elements than Crysis?

[Hamma]

Not sure on that one Bags
I thought I heard one of the devs in a Q&A video say, something like it may be in further down the line. But they may just be referring to the outfit bases or sandbox type content. Not "destructible" like Battlefield
Aye that's exactly what they said :)

[Traak]

Being able to set an entire forest on fire... now THAT's some destructible mayhem!

at 0.3 FPS lol

[Sirisian]

Being able to set an entire forest on fire... now THAT's some destructible mayhem!

at 0.3 FPS lol
hmm? Far Cry 2 allowed you to light whole area on fire. Pretty simple actually since it's just bill-boarded soft particles. Hopefully that relieves your worries.

[p0intman]

fuck trees

[CutterJohn]

How would you handle re-spawning of world objects? Do tree grow back slowly? Do they just pop back up at the stroke of midnight. When do walls, and bases re-spawn? Is it left up to the engineers to rebuild the world? Do bases magically re-build themselves the instant they are captured by a different empire?

What happened when you despawned a vehicle? When soldiers died? They were turned into nanites. The planet was teeming with them.

So, the planet regenerates itself.

As for bases, they already self repaired. Took a while, but it'd get back in shape. If it can do it for a turret, it can do it for a wall.


Trees and shrubs could just do the same. Slowly repair till they pop back in. Maybe it takes an hour to regrow, then it reappears. And maybe it waits for no players to be around before it does.

For reference, does Battlefield have more or less destroyable elements than Crysis?


A bit more. Crysis had some stuff that was destructible, but not everything. Mostly just shacks and trees. They also differed in how things were destructible. Bad company 2 changed the mesh into a damaged state, but had little physics involved. You could destroy shacks in crysis, but there was no damaged state, they were just made up of multiple components, which were broken up by explosions and impacts, but showed no damage.

[Valdae]

Yeah Crysis was mostly just shacks and tree's, but in BF you can level whole buildings which is awesome. For me its brought a whole new dimension to multiplayer FPS, and I wish it featured in more games. It also helps me deal with camping killwhores, which is always nice. :)

[Baneblade]

It would sure make killing that retarded sniper hiding along the hilltop a lot easier.

"Sniper on our six, can't countersnipe, they are hilled up!"

"No problem, just take out the entire hill with the Vanguard."

[Coreldan]

I doubt only the netcode will be the issue, but also the RAM usage. I still dont quite know how Planetside does it, but yes, it would be very taxing on resources in a game where the number of people are huge and the surrounding area is huge just as much.

Given, I have 8GBs of RAM cos APB uses so much, but the amount of complaining from 32 bit users is huge. Given, old software (such as 32 bit OS) shouldnt keep the game tech from evolving.

[p0intman]

fuck trees

To expand on my hatred of trees in planetside:

I want to destroy trees. My OS should take out the entire forest of them if it hits one. Why? Because its a freakin orbital beam of DEATH AND DESTRUCTION. Lib bombs should light it on fire and cause it to burn for a few minutes, making them crispy enough for tanks to simply roll over. Sustained machine gun/tank/gauss fire should cut trees down.

Why?

Because its absurd that they're persistant annoyances to the likes of armor and air. you know how many times ive died because of a frikkin tree?

ONE TOO MANY

[headcrab13]

Medal of Honor Spearhead multiplayer had a decent example of destructible environments that are "cheap" in terms of bandwidth and system resources. They simply added a few destructible components to each map that were located in the busiest areas. For example, a bridge that served as a choke point would have parts of the railing that could be destroyed, or the edge of a window that was commonly shot at to suppress tower snipers could be crumbled away.

A solution like this wouldn't be quite as impressive as BF or Crysis, but it would work very well for a persistent FPS and add some additional depth to the battles. Rather than calculating how much damage was done to which surface and with which weapon, the game could simple keep track of whether "courtyard column A" was damaged or undamaged.

Imagine taking cover behind one of those thick columns as an enemy tank rolled into the courtyard and shattered the side of the column with a well-placed shell, leaving you vulnerable to small arms fire. Simple things like that could add some interesting tactical choices to an already incredible experience.

-HC13

[Haro]

Rather than have the entire world be destructible, I'd rather just focus it on base walls and other structures (bunkers, base facilities, etc.) High health points, of course, and I wouldn't even bother with realistic physics or the like. Just make it a physical entity with a few different meshes and textures.

Also, it would give engineers another reason to be loved by all.

[Hamma]

Smed seems to share your hatred of trees in PlanetSide pointman, he said he hated them in the interview.. not sure if that made it on video or not. :lol:

[p0intman]

I died to another tree today. Because of a tree, I got pinned in and murdered by a reaver in a deli with two outfitmates.

FUCK TREES RIGHT UP THE FUCKING ROOTS.

[Aractain]

Rather than have the entire world be destructible, I'd rather just focus it on base walls and other structures (bunkers, base facilities, etc.) High health points, of course, and I wouldn't even bother with realistic physics or the like. Just make it a physical entity with a few different meshes and textures.

Also, it would give engineers another reason to be loved by all.

Especially if the only way to take it down was getting up close with an explosive charge.

Oh please make trees fall over and act as cover for infantry. Oh thee gods of infantry combat and hairstyles let us your humble ground based mobile weapons platforms have our cover in the form of trees, rocks, deployed walls and tank hulls. Make all of the above destroyable and we shalt be ever in thy debt great one. And ponies.

[HELLFISH88]

I'm no programmer but I sincerely hope our Dev team work's out destructive environment's somehow or to some extent; it add's such a depth and unique-ness to battles. Maybe the environment could reset during downtime? Maybe damage done to relevant Cap'able building's like tower's and bases will have to be repaired at the cost of resources?

[exLupo]

there would be no more tree

Is that not enough of a reason? Imagine... a world without concrete trees.

@Hamma - Smed's tree aversion was clear in the dev panel. He was doing that stare-off-into-space thing, going on and on about mass deforestation.

[Hamma]

:lol:

[Traak]

Concrete trees? Meet squad with flamethrowers!

That would be worth the price just to watch that. And all the indigenous wildlife (cloakers) running screaming out of the forest on fire.

[Baneblade]

So you would attack a concrete tree with the very thing it is most immune to?

[Alox]

Medal of Honor Spearhead multiplayer had a decent example of destructible environments that are "cheap" in terms of bandwidth and system resources. They simply added a few destructible components to each map that were located in the busiest areas. For example, a bridge that served as a choke point would have parts of the railing that could be destroyed, or the edge of a window that was commonly shot at to suppress tower snipers could be crumbled away.

A solution like this wouldn't be quite as impressive as BF or Crysis, but it would work very well for a persistent FPS and add some additional depth to the battles. Rather than calculating how much damage was done to which surface and with which weapon, the game could simple keep track of whether "courtyard column A" was damaged or undamaged.

Imagine taking cover behind one of those thick columns as an enemy tank rolled into the courtyard and shattered the side of the column with a well-placed shell, leaving you vulnerable to small arms fire. Simple things like that could add some interesting tactical choices to an already incredible experience.

-HC13

I really like the idea of cheap but tactical destructible environments. Also gives the engineers some repair jobs that makes sense.