Battlefield wreckage.... - Page 4

Baneblade · 2011-02-28, 03:39 PM

Infantry need more cover options, scary tank drivers like me aren't intimidated by trees and the like. But a wreck is a whole different ballgame, especially if it is volatile enough to destroy a tank that might be around half health.

But then again, I don't think it would be so bad to have inert wrecks either. Maybe make them variable based on the vehicle that made them. ANT wrecks are mini OSes waiting to be set off (if it has NTU), AMS wrecks are jungle jims, and tank wrecks can potentially have unexploded ordinance.

PsychoXR-20 · 2011-02-28, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by Timantium

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.

You're reading way to far into what I said. Would it make more sense if I said only large caliber rounds should be capable of destroying wreckage? 75mm, 100mm, 150mm, what ever the Magriders main cannon is classified as?

The only reason I said explosive was because anything in PlanetSide that could destroy a burned out tank is explosive, there are no large caliber non-explosive weapons. Explosive was a classification of weapons based on the game, not a generalization.

And if you don't like that answer, how about the simple fact that the wreckage would be protecting you from said explosive rounds?

xuur · 2011-03-01, 12:27 PM

I think it could be really handy for engineers and base defense geeks (like myself) to be able to deconstruct items into the 'ammo' they use for turrets and/or repairs etc. it would give them the need for tactical thinking in as far as 'leave that one there for cover and to block the gate' vs 'clear the area for squad ops and vehicle egress'. that sort of thing.

great ideas all

headcrab13 · 2011-07-16, 07:33 AM

I agree with the OP 100%. This was a great feeling during bridge battles in PlanetSide, where there wasn't much cover and you were taking tons of sniper fire. You could deci an enemy tank and then use the burning hull for cover while you counter-sniped or advanced on the enemy, bounding from wreck to wreck. I can see all sorts of great impromptu gameplay coming out of this.

nathanebht · 2011-07-16, 11:37 AM

I'd be real happy, if PS2 had really realistic wreckage that stayed around for a good hour+ and acted as cover.

However they are talking about thousand player battles. Having wrecks disappear suddenly because the areas busy takes me out of a game somewhat. I remember in PS1 always trying to estimate when the tank I was hiding behind was gonna disappear.

I'd rather have battlefield wreckage that looked good but didn't act as cover and had no effect on gameplay. That way you could have lots of visible wrecks on screen if your PC had the horsepower for it. PS2 development would be simplified and it should be possible to have more players causing havoc in any one given area before we get server lag.

Volw · 2011-07-16, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by nathanebht

I'd rather have battlefield wreckage that looked good but didn't act as cover and had no effect on gameplay. That way you could have lots of visible wrecks on screen if your PC had the horsepower for it. PS2 development would be simplified and it should be possible to have more players causing havoc in any one given area before we get server lag.

So as you're trying to advance, it will obscure your view and allow the enemy to shoot through it? Not good.

nathanebht · 2011-07-16, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Volw

So as you're trying to advance, it will obscure your view and allow the enemy to shoot through it? Not good.

If you didn't want to see the wreckage, you'd turn it off. Problem solved.

Supporting massive battles involving physics simulations sounds difficult enough without adding wreckage into the mix.

I'd rather have PS2 with wreckage missing, if it sped up the development and there was less server lag in large battles/larger battles were supported.

ShowNoMercy · 2011-07-16, 12:42 PM

Anyone else concerned about over-crowding caused by wrecks? or possibly people intentionally making barriers out of destroyed vehicles?

Death2All · 2011-07-16, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by nathanebht

If you didn't want to see the wreckage, you'd turn it off. Problem solved.

Supporting massive battles involving physics simulations sounds difficult enough without adding wreckage into the mix.

I'd rather have PS2 with wreckage missing, if it sped up the development and there was less server lag in large battles/larger battles were supported.

How would that work? If the wreckage is tangible object that you can take cover behind, how could you disable it? So if I don't like the ground in a game can I disable the ground and then just fly everywhere I want? Sounds pretty advantageous if you ask me.

Bags · 2011-07-16, 01:39 PM

They said in one of the multitude of interviews that wreckage right now will be hanging around for a few minutes, but they said they haven't finalized the duration yet.

Hamma · 2011-07-16, 02:52 PM

Aye what Bags said.

We asked about this during our time here, it's a delicate balance to leave the wreckage vs lag the game. I think this will be very much in flux through beta testing and on in to release.

It's just hard to leave stuff around with massive battles, every item has a cost to both the server and the client.

So while I dont see stuff disappearing instantly like it often does now I think it will disappear in a shorter duration than many of us prefer.

Sadly that may be the tradeoff to having a massive game.

nathanebht · 2011-07-16, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Hamma

Aye what Bags said.

We asked about this during our time here, it's a delicate balance to leave the wreckage vs lag the game. I think this will be very much in flux through beta testing and on in to release.

It's just hard to leave stuff around with massive battles, every item has a cost to both the server and the client.

So while I dont see stuff disappearing instantly like it often does now I think it will disappear in a shorter duration than many of us prefer.

Sadly that may be the tradeoff to having a massive game.

Exactly! If more and more people are funneling vehicles into a battle, those wrecks aren't going to be good for server performance.

I liked using wrecks as cover but them disappearing suddenly was just kinda lame. Would rather have wrecks that you can't use as cover and a client setting to adjust for how long they remain.

Some cinders and burnt parts on the ground would be fun to drive through while also enhancing the look. And wouldn't impact the server.

bkx · 2011-07-17, 01:10 AM

I've actually been thinking about this for a while... Wreckage should be a real tactical consideration. It needs to provide useful cover and should take a lot of fire before it breaks. On the other hand, battles around chokepoints will bog down if wreckage sticks around for too long.

How about if in addition to health, wrecks have an attribute called persistence? The idea is if there is only one wreck in an area, with a squad of soldiers behind it, the wreck will never despawn until it runs out of health. But if you are in the middle of a crowded bridge battle, with tanks dying left and right, wrecks will start despawning before they run out of health.

My technical description:
There should be a probabilistic formula that weights the number of wrecks in the area and the number of players very close by to each wreck. If there are a large number of wrecks nearby, there is a higher probability of wrecks despawning. But if there are lots of people nearby a wreck, it should have a very low probability of despawning relative to other wrecks in the area.