Battlefield wreckage.... - Page 2

Peacemaker · 2011-02-23, 03:20 AM

Devs? Any devs? Common boys throw us a bone here! Were starving for information!

Elude · 2011-02-23, 04:31 AM

I support this idea however I think once wreckage has been sitting around for over a minute or two it should blow up, it should also blow up to explosive fire from tanks ect.

Small wreckage should also be either pushed around when hit by a tank or just blow up when hit by the tank without too much damage done to it.

basti · 2011-02-23, 11:38 AM

Ohh yes, awesome idea! A battlefield full of destroyed tanks!

the time stuff stays, and the amount of it, should depend on the players around. In a big zerg fight, only a few wrecks should stay longer than a few minutes. But if a big zerg fight just turns into madness and one side completly rushed the enemy, destroying alot of their vehicles and pushing forward to the next area, all those wrecks should stay. Not for minutes, for WEEKS! Until to many players are in the area, then the stuff deconstructs to make sure performance stays good. Why weeks you ask? In the off chance that one battlefield doenst see a big fight for some time, it would be awesome if a few players could just see the rest of that fight. Not for cover, or for XP or whatever, just for the "yeah, i was here when that happend" moment.

Canaris · 2011-02-23, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by basti

Ohh yes, awesome idea! A battlefield full of destroyed tanks!

the time stuff stays, and the amount of it, should depend on the players around. In a big zerg fight, only a few wrecks should stay longer than a few minutes. But if a big zerg fight just turns into madness and one side completly rushed the enemy, destroying alot of their vehicles and pushing forward to the next area, all those wrecks should stay. Not for minutes, for WEEKS! Until to many players are in the area, then the stuff deconstructs to make sure performance stays good. Why weeks you ask? In the off chance that one battlefield doenst see a big fight for some time, it would be awesome if a few players could just see the rest of that fight. Not for cover, or for XP or whatever, just for the "yeah, i was here when that happend" moment.

Pte. N00Bie "Look at all the wrecks sarge, what happened here?"
Sgt. Vet "Something bad son, something very bad"

Tikuto · 2011-02-23, 12:57 PM

Wreckages could be nice, they'd also affect the battle scene. You'd always see a wreckage upon approach, and so you'd always see mess! Wreckages would have to counter-balance the instance and frequency of new vehicles and structures:

Where one wreckage is 'entrench' and 'secure', other wreckages cannot 'entrenched' themselves there.
Where one wreckage is 'secure' it will stay there until hotspots are reduced to 5% near it. (this secures the wreckage as cover for all players)
Where a wreckage is 'secure', all players can demolish it. Doing this 'loosens' the wreckage and deconstructs within 5 seconds.

---

Salvaging could work on a specialized support vehicle. The Armor Siphon wasn't much use in the original PlanetSide. With the Armor Siphon it isn't really salvaging. It's deconstructing stuff into a by-product for little nanites to use unto, and thus I suggest "the field repair reservoir":

the Deconstructor Nanites Transport
In battle the DNT uses its Armor Siphons on wreckages and feasible enemy targets for nanites. The nanites use the materials to salivate unto friendly vehicles in the field. This gives nearby vehicles the appropriate nanites to repair themselves.

An astronomical industrial machinery originated from expansions of Wormhole research has now discovered its immediate use in the new world's Nanites culture. After several stages of wormhole testing revealed the benefits of its doubt. Assuming how Wormholes work, this machinery impartially uses that power to suck its target Half-Way Travelled into a mesh of material stored in its cargo.

What this creates is an emphasise of a support role: repairing vehicles in the field, clearing wreckages and even supplying facilities with energy! It would also be a great target that'll pleasantly crush when you stomp on it. It could replace the old Advanced Nanite Transport! Give it an EMP blast whilst we're at it!

---

I am Tikuto and I dig this thread.

Traak · 2011-02-24, 01:06 AM

How about the wreck stays until you get a new tank? That way you wouldn't have people with multiple vehicle certs just piling wreckage higher and higher, with four of each making "dragon's teeth" or walls, effectively.

basti · 2011-02-24, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Traak

How about the wreck stays until you get a new tank? That way you wouldn't have people with multiple vehicle certs just piling wreckage higher and higher, with four of each making "dragon's teeth" or walls, effectively.

Erm, that wouldnt work anyway because there is a max number of wrecks in a certain area. and even if you use all recources to build a wall, whats the problem? Let them build a wall i say!

Traak · 2011-02-24, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by basti

Erm, that wouldnt work anyway because there is [IN THE PRESENT GAME MECHANICS, YOU MEAN, NOT THE NEXT GAME, WHICH IS WHAT THIS PART OF THE FORUM IS ABOUT?] a max number of wrecks in a certain area. and even if you use all recources to build a wall, whats the problem? Let them build a wall i say!

I'm talking about PS:Next. What game are you talking about? If you are talking about PS:Next, then you don't know how many wrecks are allowed in a certain area. If you are talking about this Planetside we have now, then you are in the wrong forum.

Timantium · 2011-02-24, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by Elude

I support this idea however I think once wreckage has been sitting around for over a minute or two it should blow up, it should also blow up to explosive fire from tanks ect.

Small wreckage should also be either pushed around when hit by a tank or just blow up when hit by the tank without too much damage done to it.

Exploding/burning wreckage should hurt infantry in the area as well. If we are going to have burning wreckage and smoke, shouldn't that effect the infantry "hiding" in it? Maybe we could have it burn for a few minutes, explode, then be burned out and safer for infantry use.

I would love to be able to stack burned out wreckage though. That would make bridge battles and choke point fights that much more interesting.

Originally Posted by Tikuto

CENTER]---[/CENTER]
What this creates is an emphasise of a support role: repairing vehicles in the field, clearing wreckages and even supplying facilities with energy! It would also be a great target that'll pleasantly crush when you stomp on it. It could replace the old Advanced Nanite Transport! Give it an EMP blast whilst we're at it!

---

Can we make them look like garbage trucks?

PsychoXR-20 · 2011-02-24, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by Elude

I support this idea however I think once wreckage has been sitting around for over a minute or two it should blow up, it should also blow up to explosive fire from tanks ect.

I would instead like to see the wreckage further damageable. For instance, a Prowler blows on its way into a facility and leaves its wreckage behind, knowing that the TR is probably using this for cover, infantry with AV, Vanguards, Enforcers (anything with an explosive shell) could fire at the wreckage and eventually destroy it. They could even have a few levels of damaged wreckage where it gets smaller and smaller until it eventually is destroyed, at which point it just decons into the air.

Timantium · 2011-02-25, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by PsychoXR-20

I would instead like to see the wreckage further damageable. For instance, a Prowler blows on its way into a facility and leaves its wreckage behind, knowing that the TR is probably using this for cover, infantry with AV, Vanguards, Enforcers (anything with an explosive shell) could fire at the wreckage and eventually destroy it. They could even have a few levels of damaged wreckage where it gets smaller and smaller until it eventually is destroyed, at which point it just decons into the air.

I will repeat my question: shouldn't exploding wreckage (which I assume is the result of attacking "wreckage" with "anything with an explosive shell") hurt the people (read: idiots) using it for "cover?"

Raymac · 2011-02-25, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by Timantium

I will repeat my question: shouldn't exploding wreckage (which I assume is the result of attacking "wreckage" with "anything with an explosive shell") hurt the people (read: idiots) using it for "cover?"

I must be misunderstanding you. Using cover makes one an idiot?

Timantium · 2011-02-25, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

I must be misunderstanding you. Using cover makes one an idiot?

If the "cover" is on fire and about to explode, is it really cover?

Raymac · 2011-02-25, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Timantium

If the "cover" is on fire and about to explode, is it really cover?

Of course not. Everyone that has played a shooter game in the last oh 15 years knows not to use red barrels as cover. So if the already exploded wreckage can re-explode, then it wouldn't be much use other than cosmetic. But since it is already blowed up, then a hunk of metal makes great cover. I'd prefer the latter.

Timantium · 2011-02-25, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

Of course not. Everyone that has played a shooter game in the last oh 15 years knows not to use red barrels as cover. So if the already exploded wreckage can re-explode, then it wouldn't be much use other than cosmetic. But since it is already blowed up, then a hunk of metal makes great cover. I'd prefer the latter.

Can you please reread the posts above in the thread, I think it would make a lot more sense if you did.

Summary:

Elude suggested we could blow up the wreckage with tanks or that some burning wreckage would blow up on it's own

Tikuto suggested we could use a vehicle to make the wreckage work for us or clear it out of the way

I suggested we could make wreckage burn for a few minutes and then explod, turning itself into "burned out" wreckage, which would be usable as cover and no longer dangerous to infantry.

PsychoXR-20 suggested that wreckage should be further damagable with AV weapons and "anything with an explosive shell."

I replied that wreckage that is explosive should not be used as cover, it should hurt infantry.

You chimed in and asked if you were an idiot for using cover, seemingly suggesting that I am an idiot for not knowing that cover is valuable.

I asked you if burning wreckage that is about to explode can really be called cover.

You agreed and suggested that wreckage should not be able to explode, it should be cover.

and now you are caught up.