Battlefield wreckage....

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

I understood it.

Originally Posted by Raymac

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]

Originally Posted by Hamma

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:

1. Vicinity Battling < 5%
2. Timer ## minutes

When 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]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Timantium

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]

Originally Posted by Raymac

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]

Originally Posted by Timantium

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]

Originally Posted by Raymac

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]

Originally Posted by Timantium

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.