They say it's going to have the bells and whistles of a modern FPS... Does it...

[Ferriman]

They have said in interviews that it's going to have the bells and whistles of a modern FPS... they've mentioned their favourite game titles such as the Battlefield series etc. Does that 100% mean it'll include the great destruction feature which you see with Battlefield Bad Company 2???

If you know it will do you have an evidence, i.e. an interview or review I haven't yet read.

To be honest I like all my gaming companions hopes deeply it will.


Also am I right in understanding that outfits won't be able to place towers upon release? Is it yet another great feature in a long term plan?

:groovy: Ferriman :groovy:

[Glennsnake]

When they said it would be similar to BF, I think they meant how the squad system works.

[Redshift]

Building destruction will not work in a game of this scale, the pounding bases took in PS1 would reduce them to dust in 2 mins, there's the trouble of them being fixed to be dealt with also

[Atuday]

I like it in BC2. I don't know if it fits well in a game like this.

[Ferriman]

Building destruction will not work in a game of this scale, the pounding bases took in PS1 would reduce them to dust in 2 mins, there's the trouble of them being fixed to be dealt with also

Fair Point!

But something must be destructable surely! Bunkers and such? Parts of the Base? Seeing the radar dish crash down as it's destroyed?

Make the base out some super indestructible alloy fair game but I would like to destroy something in my environment!

[kubacheski]

It could be a situation where you have destructable bases, but you can't capture a damaged base. Think of trying to secure a base that you beat the crap out of. Say for example, you attack an enemy base, and do 80% damage to it. Does it go neutral until the attackers repair it to say 60% so they can capture it? Also once you're in and waiting on the hack to go through, you're stuck at 60% so the original defending force has a slight advantage in busting your hack. So they bust up the base to where you can't hack it.

and if it's implemented something like this, it also gets into the area of sabotage. Do you self destruct a base so noone can have it if it's in your tactical best interest? And then you don't have to defend the base, but just attack the supply lines of your enemy trying to repair it.

Who knows? we certainly dont and we probably won't know til beta.

[Graywolves]

I do love destructible buildings in BC2.

But it would feel wierd if it worked like that on Planetside, maybe limited destruction but reducing a facility to debris makes it a little too hard to defend and defeats the purpose of capturing it. Then again with the hexagon territory thing it might work.

[Crator]

Perhaps true structure engineers are in order for this idea to work. So you have to cert engineer to be able to even attempt to repair damaged structures. But you can train down the cert tree to get better at it (faster repairs, equipment to do it better/easier/safer, etc.)...

[NewSith]

No. More perfomance weight = less players, more lag spikes.

[Krowe]

The poll is flawed. I do like the destruction in BC2, but I do not think that it would work in a game like planetside.

[BorisBlade]

Yeah thats a republican style poll, very misleading. Yeah i like the destruction in BC2, but dont want it in PS2 cause it doesnt work in a game with 100x the players. Everything would be rubble in minutes, boring. And honestly it doesnt add all that much. Plus its more fun to deal with the buildings and terrain rather than just say eff it and blow it all up, any monkey can do that. Takes skilled players to work with the structures and take them without blowin em up.

[Sentrosi]

Another negative or positive would be shaped charge breech assaults. I could see an interest in this. But I would want to wait and see on how it would be implemented. It could have a very exploitable effect which is something I do not want.

[CutterJohn]

They can't make everything destructible, but destructible wall sections and the like would be cool.

[exLupo]

Poll: I like the Frostbite engine and its role in BFBC2.
Thread: I do not think that SOE will (or should) include such mechanics in PS2.

PlanetSide 3 is another story altogether. :)

[Tycho]

I think if some things could be destructible like bridges. Wouldnt it be great to be able to blow a key bridge that leads to your base. It would force the attackers to air drop in or go around. Maybe you could introduce a bridge-layer which could drop a temporary bridge. Once you secure the other side your engineers could come in and repair the bridge. I think there could be some good gameplay additions with certain destructible features.

[Graywolves]

If Key territory, such as bridges, were to be destroyable; I think that they should only be triggered to explode by a high tiered commander, otherwise some asshole would just destroy the bridge twenty minutes in.

[Hamma]

While it would be awesome, destruction on the BFBC2 level would not be feasible in an MMO.

[Crator]

Meh, it's probably feasible. You just can't fathom how it would work is all. :)

[Vancha]

I could see some extent of destructible terrain making it in, but from the sounds of what it's like in BFBC2, I doubt it'll be that..."easy".

No. More perfomance weight = less players, more lag spikes.
This argument needs to stop being made. It was made for hitboxes and they included hitboxes. It was made for physics and they included physics. Make the same argument for this and it's bound to be included.

Or was that your plan all along? Make the performance argument to increase the likelihood of it being included? Of course!

[MasterChief096]

I could see some extent of destructible terrain making it in, but from the sounds of what it's like in BFBC2, I doubt it'll be that..."easy".


This argument needs to stop being made. It was made for hitboxes and they included hitboxes. It was made for physics and they included physics. Make the same argument for this and it's bound to be included.

Or was that your plan all along? Make the performance argument to increase the likelihood of it being included? Of course!

I actually agree. Hitboxes and physics are one thing, but being able to destroy shit loads of the environment would heavily stress computers, and the scale combined with hitboxes and physics is already going to be stressful enough. IMO destructible terrain is not worth the fun in comparison to the performance cost.

[NewSith]

This argument needs to stop being made. It was made for hitboxes and they included hitboxes. It was made for physics and they included physics. Make the same argument for this and it's bound to be included.

Or was that your plan all along? Make the performance argument to increase the likelihood of it being included? Of course!

Lol, sissy, it's about server perfomance, not your PC's. Where it hits and how it breaks is not decided by your computer, unlike many other things.

[Vancha]

Lol, sissy
Wait, what? You're the one scared it'd impact performance! :p

it's about server perfomance, not your PC's. Where it hits and how it breaks is not decided by your computer, unlike many other things.
Fair enough, but is that a reason to immediately discount all chance of every and any possible implementation of destructible terrain? Would a single breakable window in the entire game be beyond the capabilities of the server?

[NewSith]

Would a single breakable window in the entire game be beyond the capabilities of the server?

Understatement is obvious here. 1 breakable window, 2 breakable windows... PlanetSide'ish number of breakable windows... Plus PlanetSide'ish number of players per (let's put it this way) this bloody window.
Do you see my point?

But anyway, you realise that a "destructable environment" is not just a glass that can be broken, don't you?

[Senyu]

I think Planetside should someday get something like this. It could be used for amazing object dustruction as every little peice is taken in effect and counted. Just have each weapon designate how many particles they would destroy

Unlimited Detail Real-Time Rendering Technology Preview 2011 [HD] - YouTube


Destructable enviorment I think normally wouldn't work with Planetside. But in someways I can see it. As long as nanites repair damaged hillsides, forests, all that after a battle or continent becomes locked I would approve. And for facilities I would say only certain peices are destroyable. Like maybe some sections of the wall. I.E. the video above needs an impressive light engine and you'll see some crazy good stuff.

[CutterJohn]

Understatement is obvious here. 1 breakable window, 2 breakable windows... PlanetSide'ish number of breakable windows... Plus PlanetSide'ish number of players per (let's put it this way) this bloody window.
Do you see my point?

But anyway, you realise that a "destructable environment" is not just a glass that can be broken, don't you?

It can be, and is. BC2 destructible buildings are made up of 20-40 segments, give or take. When parts take damage, the model is swapped out, hidden by whatever explosion caused it, plus some of its own particle effects.

So not a lot of information that needs to be disseminated. The binary state of 40 'pieces'. Damaged or undamaged. Thats 5 bytes.

A bigger issue is the impact all the extra hitboxes have, but I doubt a base would suffer much from an extra 50 or 100. There were already a dozens upon dozens of non player hitboxes around bases in PS without much ill effect. The doors, consoles, tubes, lockers, terminals, turrets, minespam, motion sensors, etc, all existed without much or any detriment to gameplay. Would 50 extra damageable objects stress things? Doubtful.

The biggest issue by far is the extra content creation work and extra video memory needed for the damage states. Good damage takes 3 times longer to make than a clean mesh.

[Senyu]

It can be, and is. BC2 destructible buildings are made up of 20-40 segments, give or take. When parts take damage, the model is swapped out, hidden by whatever explosion caused it, plus some of its own particle effects.

So not a lot of information that needs to be disseminated. The binary state of 40 'pieces'. Damaged or undamaged. Thats 5 bytes.

A bigger issue is the impact all the extra hitboxes have, but I doubt a base would suffer much from an extra 50 or 100. There were already a dozens upon dozens of non player hitboxes around bases in PS without much ill effect. The doors, consoles, tubes, lockers, terminals, turrets, minespam, motion sensors, etc, all existed without much or any detriment to gameplay. Would 50 extra damageable objects stress things? Doubtful.

The biggest issue by far is the extra content creation work and extra video memory needed for the damage states. Good damage takes 3 times longer to make than a clean mesh.

Any idea if the video above would greatly solve most of these issues? Given the technology grows a bit more

[Crator]

That video is from a post in another thread on these boards. There was mention that this is not legitimate. Is that true, that it's not legit?

[CutterJohn]

Any idea if the video above would greatly solve most of these issues? Given the technology grows a bit more

Its not a rendering engine issue. So pretty much nothing would be solved.

[Senyu]

That video is from a post in another thread on these boards. There was mention that this is not legitimate. Is that true, that it's not legit?

No its pretty legit. Notch did claim it was not but another big game industry guy, forgot him name, dude that made Doom or quake or something, they mention it in this video. Without revealing much more of their system they explain that it is real and the history of the company. Mind you it is long but it gives you a look at both sides and lets you decide the truth.

Euclideon & Unlimited Detail - Bruce Dell Interview - YouTube

[2coolforu]

http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam

Unlimited detail is most certainly fake, it was plainly obvious that it wasn't what it was cracked up to be

[EASyEightyEight]

It's on the way. Maybe not for another decade, but it's coming. I wonder how developers responded when someone came up with the idea of polygons to make 3D imagery during the 2D side-scrolling era? There was a time when few thought we'd ever need more than 64kb of RAM. I wouldn't take one guy's word as gospel.

Technology advancement keeps trucking along.

*64kb isn't a typo.

[basti]

Whatever Euclideon has come up with, its something completly new in any case. Will we have games build completly around that technology? maybe, we dont know enough about the technology to be really sure about that. But in any way, games WILL take advantage of their stuff once its out.


EASyEightyEight hit it pretty good just above me. I remember Playing Duke 3D, i remember seeing the first few models, i remember all that stuff and know exactly that that stuff was a revolution for gaming. Its the same with alot of other stuff that came up during all these years. New stuff, new ideas no one else got before, a new way of doing things. This spirt once gave us Personal Computers, gave us Tennis for Two (the very first video game ever made), gave us Acarde stations, 3d graphics, TnL, Shaders, DirectX, etc. The list goes on and on.
Most of these things didnt cause an uproar, because they were just smaller improvments. But every now and then, we get a big, massive change. Euclideon is right now creating that big change.

[FIREk]

... or is a huge scam. ;) I hope their technology is real and will find its way into games, but they're avoiding all of their technology's weaknesses with lame excuses, and pretty much all they're saying (especially in interviews) sounds like propaganda.

Back to the subject of destructible environments, it's really fun in BFBC2, but it would be hard to make it fit an MMO. And I don't mean technical issues (I won't pretend like I know anything about implementing an MMO game:P).
In BFBC2 you've got as much as 16 or 24 people per side, if I recall correctly.
On Rush maps, you can tear everything down pretty quickly, as you've either lost in the first 10 minutes, or you've won the first stage and the action has moved to a different section of the map - the now-ruined part is no longer used, and therefore can remain flattened with no consequences.
On control point maps, the action is somewhat extended over a larger area, so the destruction is slower, but the match is over within 20-30 minutes. Whatever was destroyed will no longer matter after the map changes.

Now, in PS2 you will likely have denser battles, with dozens of players per side packed within the area of a BFBC2 map. The engagements will likely be extended over hours, if not days, with one side claiming an area, and the other counter-attacking, trying to take it back. So you've got more guns that can blow stuff up, and less time (if any) to rebuild said stuff.
Of course you can tone down damage made to environments, in proportion to the increase in player density, but I'm pretty sure structures would be quite flattened way sooner than in BFBC2, and would remain so for a long while, impacting gameplay.

Unless SOE figures something out and makes it work, of course, which would be great! ;)

[Mezorin]

Its worth noting that destruction 2.0 in Bad Company 2 doesn't mean EVERY building on the map, as there are some heavy concrete objective buildings that no amount of tank fire will knock down. I think PlanetSide 2 could do with some limited terrain destruction, like those god damned shrubs that keep flipping everyone's tanks all the time. Its also sort of implied that if people can BUILD a tower... why can we not demolish it?

SOME buildings should be immune to this effect, like heavily fortified structures, rocks, the ground itself (no tunneling to Auraxian China) and map entrenched bunkers. Also natural foliage/structures that Auraxis wants there could self mend in time (the Vanu nano janitors would be nice enough to clean up after the hairless apes trashing their planet). If not the Vanu nano bots fixing things, than engineers with their magic repair guns could rebuild wall structures and such, and even fortify these structures.

P.S.: Imagine a nice, pristine city/town over an Auraxiam node that after 3 hours basically has become a Stalingrad of gutted, burned out ruins that makes it an infantry play ground. That would be far more awesome to fight over than the usual golf course terrain on Cyssor.

[Graywolves]

Its worth noting that destruction 2.0 in Bad Company 2 doesn't mean EVERY building on the map, as there are some heavy concrete objective buildings that no amount of tank fire will knock down. I think PlanetSide 2 could do with some limited terrain destruction, like those god damned shrubs that keep flipping everyone's tanks all the time. Its also sort of implied that if people can BUILD a tower... why can we not demolish it?

SOME buildings should be immune to this effect, like heavily fortified structures, rocks, the ground itself (no tunneling to Auraxian China) and map entrenched bunkers. Also natural foliage/structures that Auraxis wants there could self mend in time (the Vanu nano janitors would be nice enough to clean up after the hairless apes trashing their planet). If not the Vanu nano bots fixing things, than engineers with their magic repair guns could rebuild wall structures and such, and even fortify these structures.

P.S.: Imagine a nice, pristine city/town over an Auraxiam node that after 3 hours basically has become a Stalingrad of gutted, burned out ruins that makes it an infantry play ground. That would be far more awesome to fight over than the usual golf course terrain on Cyssor.



Nope, I NEED to build tunnel networks and sneak into Generators and Spawn rooms now.

[Senyu]

http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam

Unlimited detail is most certainly fake, it was plainly obvious that it wasn't what it was cracked up to be

Maybe you should watch the second video, the 44 minute interview where they showcase it running on a laptop. Looks pretty real to me as well and considering they havent been accepting funding up the arse which they have been offered shows they aren't in it for the money, least not right now. Which tends to show your actually working on something decent

[Vancha]

Understatement is obvious here. 1 breakable window, 2 breakable windows... PlanetSide'ish number of breakable windows... Plus PlanetSide'ish number of players per (let's put it this way) this bloody window.
Do you see my point?
I see it and I disagree with it.


But anyway, you realise that a "destructable environment" is not just a glass that can be broken, don't you?
I do, but do you? You seem to think the only worthy implementation of a destructible environment would be to have so much of it that it'd be performance-killing.

[Senyu]

Granted IF destrucable enviorments was more performance easy and could be implemented better and worked amazing, I could see PS2 adopting it in someways. But given the current state of technology I would say PS2 can wait and stay the amazing game it already is sounding to be. Maybe PS3 or some heavy super duper patch/expansion could eventually have it.

[NewSith]

I do, but do you? You seem to think the only worthy implementation of a destructible environment would be to have so much of it that it'd be performance-killing.

"Do you love the player inflicted building destruction in Battlefield Bad Company 2???"

Says it all.

And, yes, I think the only worthy implementation of a destructible environment would be to have much of it. Few breakable walls and bridges will only make it look look ridiculous and crippled. Imagine that - you can devastate a building with just one tank, but trees withstand an OS. ROFLCOPTER that is.

[Malorn]

I think destructible environment is the biggest FPS leap since counter-strike made the "realistic" FPS style popular. It's great for immersive and from a practical standpoint it makes explosives far more useful as they become tools for shaping the environment.

For an MMO game however, destructible environment is difficult. It doesn't take long in BFBC2 to completely shred all semblance of cover in a map and turn it into a barren wasteland. they have some things that aren't destructible to ensure you still have a minimal amount of cover like rocks and metal containers, etc. In future games I hope those too are destructible, but they just take a lot more ordinance to damage.

That said, an individual player's ability to destroy the environment was somewhat limited and you had a small population of only 16 people max per-side in the area. A medic only had a grenade to destroy it. An engineer had AV weaponry but not a lot of rounds. An assault could re-supply and do tons. Recons had a lot with C4 / mortar strikes. Tanks were the most destructive I think.

A destructible environment is best in short engagements like the kind Battlefield has. You play 1 round and everything resets between 10-20 minutes. They can create a superb experience and you can fully appreciate a destructible environment.

PS changes everything in 3 ways.
1) more densely packed player population - more destruction potential
2) more vehicles w/ rearm, and bombers - more destruction potential
3) persistent world

The first two accelerate the destruction rate. The 3rd one is the killer. In short rounds you can easily reset the gaming world and provide a first rate experience. In a persistent world you can't do that.

There are some solutions...
1) self-repair over time (PS1 had this with base turrets, etc)
2) player-based repair (PS1 had this in limited fashion)
3) reset the environment when it isn't in use (if a tree grows and no one is around to see it...)

The 3rd option there is the only clean "reset" but you can't do that in a contested area, you can only do it after-the-fact. The only viable means by which you can restore the environment is for players to do so. In order for that to be viable it means the rate of restoration must be somewhat reasonable next to the destructive potential.

I think the right thing to do with PS2 as far as destructible environment in a persistent world goes is to try to increase the number of things that players can destroy, but also increase the rate at which structural things can be repaired. In other words, give engie's a break! Having the engineer class being the only ones that can repair things is also problematic. in PS1 nearly everyone had engineering and could repair stuff. if PS2 is class-based, then I would expect engineering & repair to be a specialty of the engineer class, but perhaps it is optional equipment for other classes as well. The loss of loadouts and such sort of kills that IMO. So the only way to make up for not having tons of engineers is to make engineers repair stuff very quickly. Like Battlefield, I also expect it to maybe have a cooldown but no permanent "ammo" for repair mechanics.

So I think the only viable thing for PS2 is to have more objectives that are destroyable, but also have faster repair to help compensate and also reward repair.

Some things that might be destoyable:
- shields that recharge on their own but can be brought down with raw damage or by destroying a shield generator on the other side (something an infiltrator could do). I'm thinking a mechanic like BFR shields here, but not on vehicles - only bases/towers. Such shields might only be available by upgrading a facility or tower using resources...
- doors / locks
- rearm / repair pads

Keeping strategic things destroyable keeps the tactical value, but there's only a limited number of those.

When the world of planetside is persistent with things like Bombers its hard to do destructible environment well. But you can't go wrong with player-based structural repair, as long as it isn't required nor tedious.

I hope ANTs are important. Refueling / resupply for repairing destructible stuff is both motivation to repair and also an alternate victory condition that I liked about PS1.

[Vancha]

"Do you love the player inflicted building destruction in Battlefield Bad Company 2???"

Says it all.
Yup, because we all know we can't expand on the topic at all. Every thread must remain strictly within the exact specific confines the original post lays out otherwise the forum explodes. :rolleyes:

And, yes, I think the only worthy implementation of a destructible environment would be to have much of it. Few breakable walls and bridges will only make it look look ridiculous and crippled. Imagine that - you can devastate a building with just one tank, but trees withstand an OS. ROFLCOPTER that is.
How is that any different to an OS blowing up a tank and leaving the grass around it unharmed, or a rocket launcher blowing up a MAX but not a tree? That suspension of disbelief is already there. Why not utilize it for the sake of better gameplay?

[Graywolves]

(if a tree grows and no one is around to see it...)


:rofl:

[NewSith]

You answered this:
And, yes, I think the only worthy implementation of a destructible environment would be to have much of it. Few breakable walls and bridges will only make it look ridiculous and crippled. Imagine that - you can devastate a building with just one tank, but trees withstand an OS. ROFLCOPTER that is.

With this:
How is that any different to an OS blowing up a tank and leaving the grass around it unharmed, or a rocket launcher blowing up a MAX but not a tree? That suspension of disbelief is already there. Why not utilize it for the sake of better gameplay?

I see no logic behind this. Base = destructable static object, that I set over against a similar non-destructable object.. You've given no destructable static objects in your reply and are just comparing two equals.

Or could it be that you're from China? With such affection for destruction...
Clue: in this line lies another reason why D.E. will fail.

[Talek Krell]

What if we were to try and scale the destruction to the new environment?

Planetside 1 didn't have set rounds, but combat tended to pass through areas and then leave them untended for extended periods as the battle lines moved on. The BC2 model of destruction seemed to be that buildings would crumble a corner here and put a hole in the wall there as they took damage, but only collapse after taking a certain number of hits.

If the "health" of the building was greatly increased then you might be able to produce a situation where a tank rolling past wouldn't produce much more than some holes in the wall as it tried to kill off the AV troops, but sustained bombing runs could level entire office buildings.

Then once the battlefront has moved on the nanite networks can slowly eat the wreckage and put it all back together for when people come back.

[Vancha]

I see no logic behind this. Base = destructable static object, that I set over against a similar non-destructable object.. You've given no destructable static objects in your reply and are just comparing two equals.
Really? Because tanks move, you can suspend your disbelief? So if there was a static tank prop that was destroyable while trees weren't, that would be weak and lame, but if there was an identical destroyable tank that was drivable and gunnable, it somehow all makes sense?

Or could it be that you're from China? With such affection for destruction...
Clue: in this line lies another reason why D.E. will fail.
It gives too much power to change the battle? The population number would cause a performance hit? The sheer amount of people would means any destroyable environment would inevitably be immediately destroyed? That's just some of the reasons I could pull from that off the top of my head. You might want to be more specific.

[Senyu]

Whats stopping a bunch of people getting in Vangaurds and reducing a base to a pile of rubble from a distance instead of spending all the time and effort of actually hacking the base?

If destructable enviorment is gona be in the game its gona need to be done right for Planetside's needs. Not anyother game. This isn't battlefield or crysis.

[NewSith]

It gives too much power to change the battle? The population number would cause a performance hit? The sheer amount of people would means any destroyable environment would inevitably be immediately destroyed? That's just some of the reasons I could pull from that off the top of my head. You might want to be more specific.

I was quite specific.

EDIT: Try to read our discussion again, but read it thoroughly.

[Vancha]

read our discussion again.

Clue: in this line lies another reason why D.E. will fail.

:doh:

[Senyu]

I just hope there is no cover system like in a lot of the new FPS games.... I hate that shit with a passion.

Ya its kinda ridicoulous now. Its a cool thing and works for some games. But godamit you didn't need any cover in Goldeneye, Quake, Doom, Red Faction, or any of the other great FPS's

[Sirisian]

Ya its kinda ridicoulous now. Its a cool thing and works for some games. But godamit you didn't need any cover in Goldeneye, Quake, Doom, Red Faction, or any of the other great FPS's
To be fair newer games are just giving you more realistic choices. A lot of people when confronted with a wall and holding a gun (think paintball or airsoft if you've played) will use their surroundings for cover shooting over them and such. Old games more or less lacked the technology. Getting players to shoot and some models loaded was good enough in their books.

The goal seems to be now to give players as much intuitive choice as possible. Take Deus Ex (the new one) for instance which has an intuitive cover system. Works in a single player where you're sneaking and moving around for a good shot, but imagining a lot of people doing it seems preposterous.

I'm thinking it's because of how dense the battles are in the original that you imagine they'll be the same with streams of people filing into bases and down corridors that someone standing still for a moment to guard a door seems odd. Until you bring it all down in scope and instead imagine a squad of 10 people moving tactically through hallways or across land with trees and broken concrete for cover.

Depends on how the battles turn out. If what they're planning with the many territories does fragment battles into small groups then things will be different and having the option of taking cover might be interesting. Remember being on a base wall shooting down and it was just the two of you standing behind one of those concrete walls that jut up around the base walls for cover? Perfect scenario where cover could be used intuitively.

I feel it would be more immersive with a squad moving around or moving toward a base. The argument that it would slow down combat and detract from the zerg is a good point though.

[exLupo]

In regards to cover in modern games, I expect we'll be seeing it a lot more in the future. However, my guess is it will be in the form of sticky corners or ledges and it'll be used to replace leaning. For leaning and it's generally agreed lack of place in PS2, visit that thread here (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37120).

Neither would match the pace or timing that we're guessing PS2 will bring.

[Mezorin]

Whats stopping a bunch of people getting in Vangaurds and reducing a base to a pile of rubble from a distance instead of spending all the time and effort of actually hacking the base?

If destructable enviorment is gona be in the game its gona need to be done right for Planetside's needs. Not anyother game. This isn't battlefield or crysis.

People actually defending the area around the base? A good squad of liberator bombers/reavers blasting the vanguards into next week? Your own armor? Some AV troopers? Or maybe heavy guns on the base itself to counter the vanguard tanks? Just because a building can be taken down by long range tank fire doesn't mean by any stretch that the defending force are sitting ducks, it just means armies will have to fight out doors more rather than lasher spamming a back door for an hour.

It is already stated as a design goal that the entire map will be fought over, rather than a control terminal inside of a base. I see this as a good move, as most of the larger base seiges in PlanetSide 1 were just lame-duck phase back door zerg stalemates that lasted until the base ran out of power.

[Lokster]

I don't think the engine used by Planetside 2 yet supports destructible environments.

I'm pretty sure during the engine demo presentation, it was stated destructible environments MIGHT be supported in the future.