Building damage?

[Magpie]

If anyone as played battlefeild games, ya Know what Im on about.
It be pretty cool having building damage in the game it be epic it could reset everytims a base has been hacked

By building damage I mean, I'm sitting in my vanguard and I point it at the TR/VS base wall, take 5 shots and it starts to make a hole in the wall so a squad and run in :)

What u people think? Not sure if it would be overpowering

[VanuMAXGuy]

pin down enemy inside base
plant C4 along the outer walls
boom
GG

[Zhane]

While I'd love to see it, I'm fairly certain all structures will be invulnerable.

Love to be proven wrong in the future.

[Vash02]

Maybe for Planetside 3 if they make one.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

If it is a destructible environment then my armour column will just destroy the base and one of our gunners will jump out to hack the rubble.

Will flails be in again? cuz flails and destructible bases would just be too easy.

Base walls cannot be indestructible. But maybe some of the junk in the courtyard area, basement, corridors etc could be. It could provide defenders a bit of cover from small arms fire (but be eroded) and destroyed by c4, grenades, heavies with AV weapons etc etc.

[Bags]

Don't expect much if any upon release. Would be cool for afutre thing.

[VioletZero]

Since you can't build structures, what this would do is just leave all the buildings in smoking ruin by the end of day 1 for the rest of the game's lifetime.

[Magpie]

Since you can't build structures, what this would do is just leave all the buildings in smoking ruin by the end of day 1 for the rest of the game's lifetime.

The ideal was everytims you hacked
The base it would rebuild via nano tech

It would stop base fighting lasting hours days

[Canaris]

This is in the same area as destructible bridges for me, no thanks. I wasn't a fan of it in BF as a couple of rounds could bring down a building, it was stupid.

It just wasn't realistic or beneficial to game play.

So no to detructable buildings, keep it to turrets and gun emplacements.

[ringring]

I believe higby said no but it could be possible down the line.

[Mastachief]

Ya Higby said NO for release.

I would like the main structures to remain invulnerable with future additions of outfit bases/tower or other player dropped structures being destructible as the OP suggested but i would still like to see it take 3 vanguards 10 shots a piece to blow a man sized hole in a wall (but never a hole big enough for a vehicle.)

[Tom Peters]

There is no way destructible environments would ever work in a game like this.

[Warborn]

There is no way destructible environments would ever work in a game like this.

You just haven't thought of the way it would work in a game like this. It is a poor attitude to say "no" so readily. What's the problem with destructible environments? That they'd be blown up in a minute and then the game would be about fighting over ruins? Well, two methods could help resolve this.

First, make stuff difficult to destroy. In BF3, an RPG would take out a section of house. In PS2, a rocket launcher should not scratch most structures. Destroying buildings should be difficult to do. Perhaps only certain weapons would be capable of destroying terrain? Maybe the engineer class could have deployable bombs, and they would broadcast their presence when set, allowing the enemy time to defuse them. Not unlike Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory with its soldier class objectives. Limiting the capacity for players to destroy the terrain helps to avoid reducing terrain to rubble after short periods of time, while nonetheless allowing for creative tactical options.

Additionally, there could be a vehicle which is actually designed for this purpose specifically. No vehicles except for this one would be able to destroy "hardened" terrain, like the walls of bases or whatever. A vehicle which fires slowly, sucks at combat against anything, need to be setup, and which shoots a high-powered cutting beam or something which can destroy structures. The idea here obviously is that the swarms of tanks can't just pound a base into rubble in minutes, but if you are able to setup and defend these special vehicles you can begin shooting the base to bits if your infantry can't make headway on their own.

Second, as people say, bases should rebuild. I'd also say that engineers should be able to rebuild destroyed terrain. Like a nano gun that does the same thing that gun in Red Faction did, recreating destroyed structures. So, between engineers being able to rebuild destroyed structures (it should require multiple engineers to seal a hole in a wall though) and bases/whatever rebuilding themselves upon being captured, you'd have structures which are not able to be destroyed easily, and which aren't perpetually in a rubble state, but which can still be destroyed under certain conditions, thus allowing for potentially a more interesting sort of gameplay.

[Ragotag]

It just wasn't realistic or beneficial to game play.

Interesting opinion; can't say I agree with you though as my BF3 experience has given me a taste for the added dynamics to gameplay that comes with a destructible environment. I would love to see it in PS2 and SOE has already claimed that the ForgeLight engine can support this feature. However, all the PS2 Dev's have said thus far on this topic is that they are looking into it and considering it.

[Hamma]

Echoing what everyone else said it won't be in the game for sure at the start but possibly down the line.

[Tom Peters]

You just haven't thought of the way it would work in a game like this. It is a poor attitude to say "no" so readily.

I say "no" so quickly because I don't think it would really be possible from a technological standpoint.

BF3 doesn't have any CRAZY destruction by any means (it's been pretty much the same since BC1) but even with destruction on the same level of BF3, I think you'd be dealing with a lot of latency issues. It's certainly plausible, but seems like an unnecessary usage of resources, knowing that this is intended to be such a massive shooter.

Your ideas are certainly viable, it would be cool to make destructible walls that have more of a health-based system, meaning it would take more then just 1 standard explosive to take it out.

But I'm more of a realist. I don't see ANY destruction coming to this game other then running down trees.

[Knocky]

Circa Aug, 2011

“The long term goal,” said Smed, “is to have environment that is destructible.” If players wreck a base totally, they will have to rebuild it before it can be useful again. He also alluded to EVE Online’s outside-in approach in that they started with space and have since created on- planet game play while their plans are inside-out, with plans for space game play in the future.

“We can build in extra detail where it is needed,” said Matt as he pulled the camera in and out of landscapes and models. We saw the heat shimmer of super-heated air under vehicles, reflections of light off armor and the sun light striking the canyon at sunrise. There will be spotlights at night, on towers and on vehicles as well.

“Imagine the old Looney Tunes prison break,” Matt laughed, “with the spotlight following you as you try to escape it.”

[Tom Peters]

Long term goals can be a while, so I suppose it will be as everyone predicted; added later. Hopefully, anyway.

The spotlights at night sound awesome though.