Destroyable terrain, new ENG cert.

[Timantium]

Spinoff thread for discussion regarding vehicles attacking bases and engineers opening new "doors" into bases. This started as a speculative solution for vehicles that camp doors.


What if we allowed vehicles to just blow the doors clean off?

Or

What if vehicles spamming ground level doorways caused the doors to crumble and be impassible.

Or

What if there was a chance for either ^^

Should Engineers be able to blow temporary holes in base walls to open new entrances?

[Traak]

What if we allowed vehicles to just blow the doors clean off?

Should Engineers be able to blow temporary holes in base walls to open new entrances?

This function can be done by someone dying in the doorway and not respawning. It involves teamwork, though, so it rarely ever happens.

[Bags]

I don't think sony will be adding a destroyable world to an MMOFPS.

[DviddLeff]

Although I would love to see deformable terrain, I don't think its possible in a game of the scale we are hoping for, or one with a persistent world.

However I would love to see engineers able to blow locked doors by planting boomers on them.

[CutterJohn]

Although I would love to see deformable terrain, I don't think its possible in a game of the scale we are hoping for, or one with a persistent world.

By simply making it like the rest of the game. Not persistent.

Planetside could only ever be called persistent on the scale of a battle. Whatever you did last night, when you log in today its all different. The only thing actually persistent were the players. Damage could easily be repaired when the base transferred control.

Of course, heightmap based deformations tend to look pretty crap, so I'm not really a fan. There could certainly be more base damage than the turrets/consoles/generators though.

[CutterJohn]

Although I would love to see deformable terrain, I don't think its possible in a game of the scale we are hoping for, or one with a persistent world.

By simply making it like the rest of the game. Not persistent.

Planetside could only ever be called persistent on the scale of a battle. Whatever you did last night, when you log in today its all different. The only thing actually persistent were the players. Damage could easily be repaired when the base transferred control.

Of course, heightmap based deformations tend to look pretty crap, so I'm not really a fan, but they are easy. Just need a decal placed on the heightmap. There could certainly be more base damage than the turrets/consoles/generators though.

[Rbstr]

I feel like you could make bases a bit more destroyable...blasting open doors walls and such. But you have to have a good mechanic to incentivize fixing those problems before heading to the next base-to-capture.


Planetside could only ever be called persistent on the scale of a battle. Whatever you did last night, when you log in today its all different. The only thing actually persistent were the players.


Except, if everyone logged out at the same time and logged back in 2 hours later things wouldn't have changes, except for bases that ran out of fuel.

The change was player based. It was completely possible for one continent to stay a certain empire's forever, even it it was unlikely. That's what you need for persistence. It fits the definition. It just has short timescales compared to something like EVE where you own a conquerable for months or years. Still persistent.

[CutterJohn]

Ok, per battle may be a bit short. But a base turrets will self repair if left alone. Don't see why that couldn't be expanded to include wall sections and such.

As for the terrain.. Heightmap deformation is pretty dang simple. You can introduce and remove changes on the fly. Less simple is how objects on the terrain handle that motion, and distributing those changes for a multiplayer client. But it is certainly doable, and has been done by SOE before, in SWG.

But I do doubt it would be very viable for battle damage. It would just look like divots on a putting green.. adding rubble would take more work.

[Hamma]

I love the idea of destroyable anything but I don't know if it fits in PlanetSide.

Maybe as Rbstr said some of the components of bases are destroyable but not everything. These components should also be randomized in some way. Say there was a place you could blow a hole in the wall.. it shouldn't always be the same place otherwise people could sit there and defend.

[Lartnev]

These components should also be randomized in some way. Say there was a place you could blow a hole in the wall.. it shouldn't always be the same place otherwise people could sit there and defend.

That would mean you have defenders watching a point of ingress that's not even open yet and thins out the defenders at the main points of entry - it helps the attacking side either way. Yes you would lose some of of the surprise factor if it was a fixed set of locations but it'd really suck if the weak point was placed right next to the front door.

In short: destructible wall sections would have a positive effect whether they were random or not.

[Timantium]

That would mean you have defenders watching a point of ingress that's not even open yet and thins out the defenders at the main points of entry - it helps the attacking side either way. Yes you would lose some of of the surprise factor if it was a fixed set of locations but it'd really suck if the weak point was placed right next to the front door.

In short: destructible wall sections would have a positive effect whether they were random or not.

This was more my thinking as well. I am not saying tanks should be able to roll in and level the base to the ground only to have it magically rebuilt with glue guns.

I want more options for attackers in this game. The ability to force open an existing entrance (to make it less defensible) or to create a new entrance by surprise would do a lot to help keep the attack and defense fresh. I am tired of empires going "ZOMG, inter farm time." I want PS:N to be much faster paced (from a campaign standpoint - the pace of actual combat is good). Bases should be harder to defend.

Think of it as a router - perhaps it could take time to channel the explosives in place (giving the defenders time to react). Perhaps it could glow on the radar as they are being set (giving the defenders time to react). Perhaps a countdown to the explosion (or just a beeping) could be heard in the base. Maybe with a thermal weapon, the place of wall where the new entrace is could glow red as the weapon "melted" through the exterior.

There are tons of ways to introduce something like this and make it fair. It would also go nicely with the "wreckage as cover" idea as defenders could pile wreckage in front of holes if they need a quick way to block an entrance.

[Sifer2]

Well destroyable terrain is a controversial feature in many games its in. On the one hand it can be a campers worse nightmare an make the game more realistic. On the other hand it can just destroy tactics an make it into just spam the explosives until everything dies.

I had the idea of random breakable walls on bases before myself. That's the area it could be the most potentially beneficial an interesting for the gameplay. Though it would be hard to flesh out. Would there be an indicator like a crack in the wall? If so defenders might just camp it anyway. If not then you would have people running around the base blasting the wall hoping to get lucky which might be silly.

[Timantium]

That's why I am suggesting that we keep it simple. Make it a CE cert, make it large enough that you can't carry a bunch around in your pack (so way bigger than the ACE) and make it like the original zelda with bombs - some parts of the wall might explode, other parts don't.

[Sifer2]

Yes your probably right make it a specific cert ability would probably be best. You might also make the ability to see weak wall indicators part of an eye implant. So not everyone would know to camp it.

[Lonehunter]

What if every time a SOI received an alert of so many troops one of the base walls on the map says it can be sieged. With a shit ton of explosive damage the whole thing could be brought down. It's destructible but leaves the base up, and may be better with the population/resources we'll be dealing with. It could even take hours to build it's self back up, or engi's can repair. They could totally use destructible mechanics, just not the whole world.

[Timantium]

What if every time a SOI received an alert of so many troops one of the base walls on the map says it can be sieged. With a shit ton of explosive damage the whole thing could be brought down. It's destructible but leaves the base up, and may be better with the population/resources we'll be dealing with. It could even take hours to build it's self back up, or engi's can repair. They could totally use destructible mechanics, just not the whole world.

I'm not sure I understand, are you suggesting we can bring down one of the outer walls in the CY simply by causing red alerts in the SOI? I don't see how this would make the interior of the base harder to defend.