PDA

View Full Version : Multiplayer Destroyable Environments...?


Firestorm
10-26-2007, 06:14 PM
There is this BF3 rumor that the next BF game for PC (plus don't forget the consoles BF : Bad Company) will have destroyable almost everything. (it's something like 90% for BF Bad Company)
Now onto the foreseeable problems: :B
How will the friendly TK (team Kill) issue be resolved? If you can blow up a building (ie collapsing the roof) how do you know if friendly units are inside or not? Even if you had radar to show other team members it's still not going to stop some types players from simply getting a +1 enemy kill and -1 friendly kill. Now of course the TK option can be taken off however walking away without a scratch from a 2 story building falling on you is not exactly realistic in my books.Now add 64+ players to the mix and it's utter chaos. :eek:
Of course the ammunition or buildings could be nerfed so for instance you would have to fire 99 zookas to bring a building down however I don't think that would come out right..in terms of realism...again. This also brings questions. Would a damaged building respawn to full health after a while? :eek:
Even I would be tempted to destroy an odd building just for kicks at the click of the mouse only to find out by the end of the game it held strategic importance therefore my side lost. :mad:
Rather than making each building destroyable I would go for selective destroyability (wait a minute don't battlefield games already have this?) :o
So of course this is not a bad idea by all means and would take fps gaming to a whole new level. But how will (if) they implement/ balance it within the multi player environment? :rolleyes:

0ddball
10-26-2007, 07:04 PM
100% destroyable environment ! My FPS Dream ! :d

BTW, if the game is a WW2 FPS, there's few weapons that can actually destroy a whole building (perhaps tanks guns or the like).

The problem arises if it's a Modern Warfare FPS and then the answer is perhaps to be found in what you said:
"fps gaming to a whole new level"
Whith such "destroyables" games, I think that players should have to act more cautiously than they currently do and avoid firing with their RPG everywhere. These games should simply introduce a new way of playing FPS.
About your (very true) sentence:
"Even I would be tempted to destroy an odd building just for kicks at the click of the mouse only to find out by the end of the game it held strategic importance therefore my side lost."
This should be an aspect of this new way of playing: Think before explode everything...:d

I'm not a specialist on military matter but I think these "TK problems" are indeed the sames that the actual soldiers have to manage very often on urban battlefields. Then these new games will also enforce the realism of the situation, driving players to act with more attention and thinking.

Parrot
10-26-2007, 07:11 PM
think of the destructable environments and the benefit that provided the Russians in Stalingrad- the germans thought they would bomb the ruskies into submission, but they actually provided tons and tons of ideal sniper havens, which later came back to haunt them.

I think its a great idea. Imagine being a sniper in a FPS game, and having uniuqe hiding places every round on the same map? sounds fantastic!

SixGunJustice
10-26-2007, 07:36 PM
Red Faction released in 2001 used "GEO MOD (geometry modification)" technology that allowed EVERYTHING to be completely destroyed - walls, glass, buildings, floors, the ground. You could literally topple towers by taking out the base with the rocket launcher, leave buildings in complete rubble, blow tunnels thru a mountain side . . . The game premise wasn't too great (trying to escape from a Mars work camp), but the geo mod feature was outstanding and made it worth playing IMHO . . . I have always wondered why this technology has never made it into other games in the last 6 years.

6Gun

Firestorm
10-26-2007, 08:14 PM
What this could also cause is unbalance further the infantry/vehicle combat. A tank now has capability to take out a building with 10 people in it this would encourage the so called 'tank-whoring' even more :frown: ...and what about the planes? However yes I agree that if this is played in organized settings such as clans than it could work :bravo: however in public game-play it might cause more frustrations thus the dilemma about the friendly tk's. :eek: In real life army there is usually a plan where units go or occupy a building however in the Battlefield game the players are usually scattered about with no sense of cohesion...(especially in public games). Even in the movie Saving Private Ryan there were 2 sides defenders and attackers with sprinklings of incursions in and out of enemy occupied areas (ie the sniper in the church tower etc) So bottom line is that I think this is too much power and too many ways to abuse it by the players... :no way:

Mike Nomad
10-27-2007, 05:46 AM
What this could also cause is unbalance further the infantry/vehicle combat. A tank now has capability to take out a building with 10 people in it this would encourage the so called 'tank-whoring' even more :frown: ...and what about the planes? However yes I agree that if this is played in organized settings such as clans than it could work :bravo: however in public game-play it might cause more frustrations thus the dilemma about the friendly tk's. :eek:

Please, for God's sake lose this exampling for Clans. Its elitist, insulting and offensive. Competitive play and Public Play are equally as decisive in the future of any FPS offering. The truth is Destroyable Environments (DE) are a boon for ALL players and types of game play. The US/THEM or superiority mentality will do nothing but hamper moving forward with this concept.

Clan Play, Competitive Play and Public Play are all integral foundational segments of what makes a successful game as long as they are all equally considered when incorporating gameplay assets and features. If any one of them are "favored" the gameplay will be hobbled thus endangering the potentials for a successful and profitable game.

Truth is, DE is the key to the future of FPS, Realism, and total immersion. To jump up and say Tanks Whores will rule because they pummel Infantry is a total misnomer... Tanks and Infantry maintain a symbiotic relationship. The key being TEAMWORK.

Now, if an enemy group is in a building that's destroyed by a Tank or perhaps by a soldier shouldering an RPG... Oh well... that's realism... either way the roof collapsed and killed the occupants. Realism.

Should we frown upon all weapons capable of such damage? No, of course not. These elements of gameplay must be part of the DE future along with the sensible progression of the game's actual development embracing all facets of DE.

In real life army there is usually a plan where units go or occupy a building however in the Battlefield game the players are usually scattered about with no sense of cohesion...(especially in public games). Even in the movie Saving Private Ryan there were 2 sides defenders and attackers with sprinklings of incursions in and out of enemy occupied areas (ie the sniper in the church tower etc) So bottom line is that I think this is too much power and too many ways to abuse it by the players... :no way:

I'm sorry, in the REAL ARMY - There are always going to be units that occupy strategic locations whether its buildings, trenches, caves, trees or hollows in open fields. ("Them's the facts":))

As for any type of an illusion of fact based on the script of a movie, that's an impossible reach. Truth is all games will have to religiously encompass the three major factors for successful FPS type games they are:

Balance
Realism
PlayabilityWhile they may appear as casual generalities... these three factors are all encompassing. I'm sure we'll all discuss them at length in the future.

dickybird
10-27-2007, 07:42 AM
from what i know the only way to destroy the environment on the type of scale your taking about and not have the PC go "oh crap i cant do this.....BSOD time" is to use the ageia physX card. Also theres the graphics hardware required to be able to render the destruction. RPG7's and 66mm laws, millans and javlins dont actually make a wide blast radius because its all concentrated to be able to cut through the armour of a tank. 66mm law and the smaller RPG7 warheads give about half a metre of damage a millan or javlin around 1 metre that means lots of small segments will be needed in walls. Then theres the amount of work it takes to set up the environment destruction for artists (as the BF engine doesnt do BSP) its going to take 100's of man hours to model a building then cut it up UV map texture, normal map. Theres also going to be a massive requirement for uploading and downloading physics info packets to the servers to ensure the environment is destroyed the same way across everybodys systems.

Mike Nomad
10-27-2007, 07:55 AM
from what i know the only way to destroy the environment on the type of scale your taking about and not have the PC go "oh crap i cant do this.....BSOD time" is to use the ageia physX card.

Not true......... Algorithms of today are as amazing as are all sorts of api's and specific routines. What makes a machine balk is simple... it needs updating or replacement.

Remember the ageia code installed by Airborne? That was "crude" when compared to what is really available and coming down the pipe in the very near future.

Also theres the graphics hardware required to be able to render the destruction. RPG7's and 66mm laws, millans and javlins dont actually make a wide blast radius because its all concentrated to be able to cut through the armour of a tank. 66mm law and the smaller RPG7 warheads give about half a metre of damage a millan or javlin around 1 metre that means lots of small segments will be needed in walls. Then theres the amount of work it takes to set up the environment destruction for artists (as the BF engine doesnt do BSP) its going to take 100's of man hours to model a building then cut it up UV map texture, normal map. Theres also going to be a massive requirement for uploading and downloading physics info packets to the servers to ensure the environment is destroyed the same way across everybodys systems.

Not so sure about that either.... highly optimized local machine resident mutual code sync'ed with servers and many other superb refinements including high performance netcode and new, powerful game engines (UE3).. offer a great deal in the way of advancement. (UE3 when utilized to its fullest is stunning.)

You will see much more by the end of the year and be absolutely amazed by Q2 next year.

DE is the future. It'll be breathtaking.

OneShot
10-27-2007, 09:30 AM
think of the destructable environments and the benefit that provided the Russians in Stalingrad- the germans thought they would bomb the ruskies into submission, but they actually provided tons and tons of ideal sniper havens, which later came back to haunt them.


Good point Parrot, same thing happened at Monte Casino during WWII. Allies finally bombed the Monastery into ruble and then when their ground troops assaulted the Axis paratroopers just came out of their holes and used the devastation for better concealment and cover!

Norminator
10-27-2007, 12:07 PM
Red Faction released in 2001 used "GEO MOD (geometry modification)" technology that allowed EVERYTHING to be completely destroyed - walls, glass, buildings, floors, the ground. You could literally topple towers by taking out the base with the rocket launcher, leave buildings in complete rubble, blow tunnels thru a mountain side . . . The game premise wasn't too great (trying to escape from a Mars work camp), but the geo mod feature was outstanding and made it worth playing IMHO . . . I have always wondered why this technology has never made it into other games in the last 6 years.

6Gun

I was going to say that :wink2:

Red Faction was great and the first FPS I played against/with other humans. (not counting 20 minutes of Doom MP)
I'm amazed that no other game has used the Geo Mod, because Red Faction was waaay ahead of its time back then.
Recently tried it on PC, and it was still good. Blasting your way through any wall was just good fun.

nedgerblansky
10-27-2007, 12:44 PM
I was going to say that :wink2:

Red Faction was great and the first FPS I played against/with other humans. (not counting 20 minutes of Doom MP)
I'm amazed that no other game has used the Geo Mod, because Red Faction was waaay ahead of its time back then.
Recently tried it on PC, and it was still good. Blasting your way through any wall was just good fun.

I had some fun too with Red Faction a few years ago.
The desctructable environments were cool, but totally superfluous !
I remember you were really forced to use them only once, to open a breach next to a closed door.
The rest of the campaign could be finished without destroying a thing.
By analogy, the gravity gun was an essential part of the gameplay in Half-Life 2.
So the most important is the way these technologies get integrated into the gameplay.

Norminator
10-27-2007, 02:06 PM
you could actually use the destructible env. alot more than that ned. Specially on MP.
I remember in SP digging a long tunnel at a random spot with one of the vehicles you can operate and ended up in a different room (or cave). That path had nothing to do with the storyline or "linearity".

I'm hoping to see some portal gun included in future HL2/valve games ;)

nedgerblansky
10-27-2007, 03:24 PM
you could actually use the destructible env. alot more than that ned. Specially on MP.
I remember in SP digging a long tunnel at a random spot with one of the vehicles you can operate and ended up in a different room (or cave). That path had nothing to do with the storyline or "linearity".

I'm hoping to see some portal gun included in future HL2/valve games ;)

Yeah, sure.
I was just saying that the game did not force you to destruct environments and you could very well play without this feature in SP.
I did not play a lot of MP ; I remember a map in an office with several levels that quickly became a big "gruyère"...
And yes a portal gun in all new HL games would be quite awesome !