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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Senyu]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by NewSith

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.

Originally Posted by NewSith

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]

Originally Posted by Vancha

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]

Originally Posted by NewSith

"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.

Originally Posted by NewSith

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]

Originally Posted by Malorn

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

[NewSith]

You answered this:

Originally Posted by NewSith

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:

Originally Posted by Vancha

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]

Originally Posted by NewSith

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?

Originally Posted by NewSith

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.